Science and Technology in Human Societies: from Tool Making to Technology

Chapter 44

Science and Technology in Human Societies: From Tool Making to Technology

C.J. Cela-Conde1 and F.J. Ayala2 1University of the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain; 2University of California, Irvine, CA, United States

TOOL MAKING nor will we go into the later cultural developments that follow the evolution of the modern mind. The adaptive strategies of all taxa belonging to the genus We should already express a methodological caveat Homo included the use of stone tools, although the char- before proceeding: the scheme Cultural Mode ¼ species, is acteristics of the lithic carvings changed over time. The too general and incorrect. The assumption that a certain earliest and most primitive culture, Oldowan or Mode 1, kind of hominin is the author of a specific set of tools is appears in East African sediments around 2.4 Ma in the grounded on two complementary arguments: (1) the hom- Early Paleolithic. Around 1.6 Ma appears a more advanced inin specimens and lithic instruments were found at the tradition, the Acheulean or Mode 2. The Mousterian culture same level of the same site; and (2) morphological in- or Mode 3 is the tool tradition that evolved from Acheulean terpretations attribute to those particular hominins the d culture during the Middle Paleolithic. Finally for the ability to manufacture the stone tools. The first kind of d limited purposes of this chapter the Aurignacian culture, evidence is, obviously, circumstantial. Sites yield not only or Mode 4, appeared in the Upper Paleolithic. The original hominin remains, but those of a diverse fauna. The belief proposal of cultural modes by Grahame Clark (1969) that our ancestors rather than other primates are responsible included a Mode 5 by differentiating some technical details, for the stone tools comes from the second type of argument, allocating to Mode 4 the punch-struck blades from pris- the capacity to manufacture. This consideration is perfectly matic cores of the Upper Paleolithic, while the Mode 5 was characterized by the episode involving the discovery and reserved for the microliths and compound tools of the late proposal of the species H. habilis.AsLouis et al. (1964) Upper Paleolithic. We believe that this distinction is not said, “When the skull of Australopithecus (Zinjanthropus) necessary for the present chapter, whose aim is to relate boisei was found [in Olduvai, Bed 1] no remains of any fi cultural development to human evolution. A rst approach other type of hominid were known from the early part of attributes each cultural stage to a particular human taxon. the Olduvai sequence. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to Thus, the beginning of tool making, ie, Mode 1, is linked to assume that this skull represented the makers of the Old- “ ”d Homo habilis, and technology understood as the mak- owan culture. The subsequent discovery of H. habilis in ing of tools which require a modern mind necessary for association with the Oldowan culture at three other sites has d Mode 4 to Homo sapiens. Although we will also examine considerably altered the position. While it is possible that the technical advances assigned to Mode 5 by Clark (1969), Zinjanthropus and H. habilis both made stone tools, it is these are part of an evolution that does not involve a change probable that the latter was the more advanced tool maker “ ” of species. In fact, the technology may be adding new and that the Zinjanthropus skull represents an intruder (or a modes due to the multiple technological advances that the victim) on an H. habilis living site.” (Leakey et al., 1964). cultural evolution of H. sapiens has achieved, starting with Here we have a clear example of the argumentative ’ agriculture. It doesn t make sense to suggest such a model, sequence: First, a Paranthropus boisei cranium and

associated lithic instruments were discovered at the FLK I evidence of such behaviors collected by Jane Goodall and site, Olduvai. Later, hominins with a notably greater cranial Jordi Sabater Pi (Goodall, 1964; Sabater Pi, 1984), many capacity, included in the new species H. habilis, were cases of chimpanzee tool use that can be considered cul- discovered at the same place. Eventually, stone tools were tural have been brought to light. Very diverse cultural tra- attributed to H. habilis, morphologically more advanced in ditions have been documented, including up to 39 different its planning capacities. Leakey et al. (1964) paper included behavioral patterns related with tool use by chimpanzees a cautionary note. Even though it is less probable, it is (Boesch and Tomasello, 1998; Vogel, 1999; Whiten et al., conceivable that Zinjanthropus also made lithic tools. 1999). Some of these patterns include the use of different However, the attribution of capacities that identify tools in sequence, as it is done by the Loango chimpanzees H. habilis as the author of Olduvai lithic carvings has some (Gabon) for obtaining honey (Boesc et al., 2009). It is, of reservations. John Napier (1962) published an article on the course, true that the use of tools includes different patterns evolution of the hand two years before, relating stone tools in the case of humans, who carry out operational planning to the discovery of 15 hominin hand bones by Louis and tasks and, in particular, technical improvement processes Mary Leakey at the site where Zinjanthropus had been (Davidson and McGrew, 2005). However, it is also true found. According to Napier, “Prior to the discovery of that chimpanzees are able to consider future uses of tools, Zinjanthropus, the South African man-apes (Australopith- which involves some planning (Mulcahy and Call, 2006). It ecines) had been associated at least indirectly with fabri- has even been observed experimentally in these apes a cated tools. Observers were reluctant to credit man-apes conformity to cultural norms used by dominant individuals with being toolmakers, however, on the ground that they in the group, an attitude similar to human behaviors lacked an adequate cranial capacity. Now that hands as (Whiten et al., 2005). well as skulls have been found at the same site with un- One of the most interesting aspects of chimpanzee doubted tools, one can begin to correlate the evolution of behavior, to understand the evolution of the lithic tradi- the hand with the stage of culture and the size of the brain” tions, is the production, at the beginning unintentional, of (Napier, 1962). flakes which resemble those produced by the first human Napier’s (1962), and Leakey et al. (1964) in- cultures. This “spontaneous” production appears when terpretations of the Olduvai findings exemplifies the risks chimpanzees accidentally shatter a stone while trying to involved in the correlation of specimens and tools. Both the crack nuts; the result can lead to sets of cores and flakes skull of Zinjanthropus (OH 5) as well as the OH 8 that are reminiscent of those in the oldest hominin sites collection of hand and feet bones (with a clavicle), all of containing tools (Mercader et al., 2002, 2007). It is them found by the Leakey team in the same stratigraphic reasonable to think that the hominins themselves would horizon, could be related to lithic making. Sites yielding use, at least as much as chimpanzees, the spontaneous tools and fossil samples of australopiths and H. habilis tools available (Panger et al., 2002). And they would do it require deciding which of those taxa made the tools. The for a considerable time before starting to produce tools widespread attribution of Mode 1 to H. habilis is based on a explicitly. This idea was expressed by John Robinson set of indicators among which are hand morphology and (1962) when he said that the australopiths did not produce size, as well as brain lateralizationdan expression of the the complex carved stone found in Sterkfontein; but, for control capabilities of either handd(Ambrose, 2001; Pan- this author, this does not mean they lacked culture. When ger et al., 2002). seeking food they could have used rocks, sticks, bones, and any other tools that would be useful for their purposes. PRECULTURAL USES OF TOOLS Eudald Carbonell et al. (2007) have referred to these us- ages prior to tool production as the “biofunctional stage” Regarding the use of stones or other materials for obtaining or “Mode 0.” Shannon McPherron et al. (2010) have food, one must distinguish between two different opera- identified at the site of Dikika (Ethiopia) stone toole tions. One matter is to make use of pebbles, sticks, bones, inflicted marks on bones whose age is more than 3.39 Ma. or any available object to, for example, break nutshells and Even though McPherron et al. (2010) foundnotoolsin access the fruit; another is to manufacture very deliberately Dikika, Sonia Harmand presented at the meeting of the tools with a specific shape to carry out a precise function. Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco on April 14, Although we are speaking in speculative terms, it is 2015, the finding at the site of Lomekwi (Lake Turkana, conceivable that the spontaneous use of objects as tools Kenya) of tools coming from sediments with an age of preceded stone carving. around 3.3 Ma (Callaway, 2015). There are, moreover, By means of the comparative study of the behavior of very heavy artifacts, some of them up to 33 lbs. Although African apes, ethology has provided some interesting in- at the time of writing this chapter the research on these terpretations about how chimpanzees use, and sometimes tools has not been published, clues about the ancient use of modify, stones and sticks to get food. Since the first stone tools are increasing. Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 731

It should be noted that suspicions about the existence of spheroiddwhich are unequivocal signs of the manipulation a distinct cultural level for australopiths were for a long of raw materials to obtain tools designed to cut and crush time tied to evidence coming from Taung and Sterkfontein. (Robinson and Manson, 1957). However, there are doubts The fractured bases of baboon skulls of Taung and other regarding the association between stone tools and their places, for example, indicated to Raymond Dart that they authors. The sites that have provided Australopithecus were cracked to consume their insides. Dart (1957) argued africanus, Sterkfontein, Makapansgat and Taung, are not that the bones themselves had been used by australopiths as the only ones that have provided samples of an early lithic tools to strike, crush, and cut, giving rise to a tradition of culture. There is also a stone industry at Swartkrans (Brain, using tools of “natural” origin, the osteodontokeratic cul- 1970; Clarke et al., 1970), though it was found a long time ture prior to the use of stone tools. after Dart elaborated his idea of hominization. The inter- Although the osteodontokeratic culture was eventually pretation of the possible stone artifacts found at Kromdraai considered as a misinterpretation, and taphonomic studies is not easy (Brain, 1958). But even in Sterkfontein, the would tend to argue that the identified bones were not Extension Site belongs to Member 5, whereas Member 4, actually tools, studies such as that of Francesco d’Errico older than 5, has provided a great number of Au. africanus and Lucinda Backwell (2003) on the uses of bones from specimens although it has yielded no lithic tool whatsoever. Sterkfonteindmembers 1e3, between 1.8 and 1.0 Mad If the accumulation of bones at Sterkfontein Member 4 have shown indications, in the form of wear marks, of their was due to scavengers, and if australopiths were the hunted being used in milling tasks. In a later work, d’Errico and and not the hunters, the question concerning the first tool- Backwell (2009) studied the different uses of bones. Once makers remains unanswered. The answer will depend on again, for the functions assigned to bones as tools, the use preconceptions regarding cognitive capacities and hominin of sticks by chimpanzees in tasks such as digging, to extract adaptive strategies. New kinds of evidence have bearing on termites or to separate the bark of trees, can serve as a this issue: the paleoclimate to which different genera and model. Optical interferometer analysis of terminal areas of species were adapted; the morphology of certain key ele- bones used as tools has revealed different wear patterns on ments required for the intentional manipulation of objects, specimens from Swartkrans and Drimolen. d’Errico and such as hands and the brain; the diet and the taphonomic Backwell (2009) concluded that the differences found study of the relation at the sites of bones and tools. indicate diverse activities, as well as contacts with abrasive particles of various sizes, that would point to tasks similar TAPHONOMIC INDICATIONS OF to those that have been observed in chimpanzees. CULTURE The use of bones as tools extends to the African Middle Paleolithic, and even to the Upper Paleolithic, although Paleoclimatological conclusions regarding early hominin with very different purposes to those inferred for tools of taxa suggest they were adapted to tropical forests. This is Swartkrans lower levels, as is evidenced, for example, by the case of Australopithecus anamensis (Leakey et al., the small ivory points from Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire 1995), Ardipithecus ramidus (WoldeGabriel et al., 1994), (Brooks et al., 1995; Yellen et al., 1995). The markings Australopithecus afarensis (Kingston et al., 1994) and Au. found on the bones have been used as evidence of butch- africanus (Rayner et al., 1993). This argues against Ray- ering activities. If appropriate taphonomic considerations mond Dart’s original hypothesis that related bipedalism, the are taken into account, the markings observed on carcasses expansion of open savannas, and the appearance of the first are an irrefutable proof of the use of cutting tools on them. hominins. The first hominins would have emerged long However, according to Sherwood Washburn (1957) the before the expansion of the savanna in Africa and before accumulation of remains in the breccias of South African any evidence of lithic tool use. caves is unrelated to hominin butchering tasks. There is a But in Dart’s time no Miocene hominins were known, predominance of mandibular and cranial remains because so it was logical that he spoke of “the first humans,” they are the bones most difficult to break, so that they tend referring to those who colonized the savanna during the to accumulate in the lairs of predators and scavengers. Pliocene-Pleistocene. Which of them first began to use Ancestral hyenas are likely responsible for the accumula- stone tools? Again, we are facing the necessity to associate tion of remains that we now find fossilized, australopiths fossil remains to the lithic tools found at the sites. included. It has been suggested that the Taung child itself We said before that the attribution of a particular was the victim of a predator, probably an eagle (Berger and hominin taxon to the making of a specific culture type is Clarke, 1996), though this hypothesis has been criticized based on finding the hominin specimens and lithic in- (Hedenström, 1995). struments at the same level of the same site. However, we Manipulated stones cannot be attributed to predators. must avoid falling into circularity. Especially, every pre- Many lithic instruments have been found at the Sterkfon- caution should be taken when attributing manipulation of tein Extension Sitedhand axes, cores, flakes, and even a ancient tools to hominins of different sympatric species. If 732 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

we find two taxa, T1 and T2, present at the same site and Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2007). In fact, the controversy is stratigraphic horizondas happens with H. habilis and not decisive. Once again, it is reasonable to think that the P. boisei at Olduvaidand if we claim that the authors of first Homo were opportunists, and in their carnivorous the carvings belong to one of them, let’s say to T1, because behavior benefited from the available opportunities to both we assume that they have the ability to make tools, we will scavenge and hunt. be falling into a circular argumentation. When finding the tools, we assume that those who carved them are precisely MODE 1: OLDOWAN CULTURE those individuals to whom we had previously attributed the possession of a cognitive level and manual capacity for Taphonomic studies, aimed at reconstructing the process of manufacturing them. accumulation of available fossil evidence at a site, have Circularity can be broken if in sites where the alleged increased our understanding of the behavior of early authors, such as T1, are found, of the carvings, tools are hominins. Different East African sites (Olduvai, Koobi also found in a fairly widespread way, while that is not the Fora, Olorgesailie, Peninj) provide samples of hominin case for T2 or any other taxon, which only sporadically are living sites with a direct association of hominin fossil re- found associated with tools. In that case, it is reasonable to mains and manipulated stones. accept T1 as the toolmaker. Although Olduvai gorge was not the first place in which The systematic coincidence between a specimen of a early stone tools were found, it gave name to the earliest particular morphology and lithic carvings of a specific known lithic industry: Mode 1, also known as Oldowan cultural tradition is what has led us to consider the first culture. The excellent conditions of the Olduvai sites pro- species of the genus Homo as responsible for the oldest vided paleontologists and archaeologists with the chance to culture. carry out taphonomic interpretations for reconstructing With regard to South Africa, the issue is uncertain. hominin habitats. Any lithic culture can be described as a Sterkfontein Member 5 has yielded the Stw 53 cranium, set of diverse stones manipulated by hominins to obtain which, as we saw, is considered as either H. aff. habilis or tools to cut, scrape, or hit. They are diverse tools obtained an Australopithecus of an unspecified species; and it was by hitting pebbles of different hard materials. Silex, quartz, considered as the specimen-type of Homo gautengensis by flint, granite, and basalt are some of the materials used for Darren Curnoe (2010). Swartkrans has also provided some tool making. In the Oldowan culture, the size of the round exemplars attributed to H. habilis and, regarding Taung, the shaped cores is variable, but they usually fit comfortably in most widespread opinion argues that the stone tools are the hand; they are tennis ballesized stones. Many tools much more recent and that they were made by more belonging to different traditions fit within these generic evolved hominins. characteristics. What specifically identifies Oldowan cul- The words “more evolved” obscure the circularity trap ture is that its tools are obtained with very few knocks, about which we spoke earlier. It makes us think that, as the sometimes only one. The resultant tools are misleadingly carving of lithic tools imply high cognitive abilities, the crude. It is not easy to hit the stones with enough precision presence of tools of that type leads us to conclude that their to obtain cutting edges and efficient flakes. creators had reached a higher cognitive development. To The Oldowan tools are usually classified by their accept that as a truth it is necessary to relate that “cognitive shapes, with the understanding that differences in appear- leap” with some other evidence aside from stone tools. ance imply different uses. Large tools include: (1) cobbles Taphonomic studies, which reconstruct the process of without cutting edge, but with obvious signs of being used accumulation of available fossil evidence at a site, have to strike other stones, with the very appropriate name of enabled further progress in understanding the behavior of hammerstones; (2) cobbles in which a cutting edge was ancient hominins. Different sites in East Africa (Olduvai, obtained by striking, which served to break hard surfaces Koobi Fora, Olorgesailie, Peninj) provide evidence of such as long bones (to reach the marrow, for example). hominin habitation with direct association of hominin fossil They are called choppers; (3) flakes resulting from the blow remains and manipulated stones. As a result of such studies, to a core. Their edges are very sharp, as much as one of a Raymond Dart’s idea of hominins as hunters in the open metal tool, and their function is to cut skin, flesh, and the savanna was followed by the hypothesis that the first stone tendons of animals that need to be butchered. They can be tool makers were scavengers who cooperated to a greater or retouched or not; (4) scrapers, retouched flakes with an lesser degree to obtain food (Binford, 1981; Blumenschine, edge which recall in some ways a serrated knife, and whose 1987; Bunn, 1981; Isaac, 1978). The role of cooperation function would have been to scrape the skin into rawhide; and the type of activity aimed to obtain meat are still (5) polyhedrons, spheroids, and discoids. Cores manipu- controversial, and some authors advocate the idea that lated in various ways, as if flakes had been removed from hominins associated to sites with ancient cultural presence their outer perimeter. Their function is uncertain; they may were hunters rather than scavengers (for example, be nothing more than waste without particular utility. Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 733

It is not easy to arrive at definitive conclusions Are these marks indicative of cannibalistic practices, or regarding the use of Oldowan tools. The idea we have of are they signs of something like a ritual? The available their function depends on the way we interpret the adap- evidence does not provide an answer to this question. It is tation of hominins that used them, based on arguments not even possible to determine whether the hominin that that are often circular. Toolmakers can be seen, as Lewis disarticulated the Stw 53 mandible and its owner belonged Binford (1981) did, as a last stage in scavenging, when only to the same species. But cannibalistic behaviors have been large bones are available. If this were the case, the most inferred from Middle Pleistocene cutmarks. This is how important tools would be the hand axes that allow hitting a the cutmarks on the Atapuerca (Spain) ATD6-96 mandible cranium or femur hard enough to break them. If, on the have been interpreted (Carbonell et al., 2005). It has contrary, we understand that early hominins butchered also been suggested regarding the Zhoukoudian sample almost whole animals, then flakes would be the essential (Rolland, 2004). Cannibalism seems to have been common tools. A functional explanation can be established between among Neandertals and the first anatomically modern hand axes, manipulated with power grips, and flakes, which humans. require handling them with the fingertips using a precision The Oldowan culture is not restricted to Olduvai. Stone grip. It is not easy to go beyond this, but some authors, like tools have also been found at older Kenyan and Ethiopian Nicholas Toth (1985a,b), have carried out much more sites, though in some occasions their style was slightly precise functional studies. Toth argued that flakes were different. These findings have extended back the estimated enormously important for butchery tasks, even when they time for the appearance of lithic industries (Table 44.1). For were unmodified, while he doubted the functional value of a list of Mode 1 main sites, see Plummer (2004). some polyhedrons and spheroids. Close to 3000 artifacts were found in 1997 at the Several kinds of evidence have been used to resolve the Lokalalei 2C site (West Turkana, Kenya), with an estimated question of how early hominins obtained animal proteins. age of 2.34 Ma. They were concentrated in a small area, One is the detailed analysis of the tools and their possible about 10 square meters, and included a large number of functionality. The microscopical examination of the edge of small elements (measuring less than a centimeter) (Roche a lithic instrument allows inferring what it was used et al., 1999). The tools were found in association with some fordwhether it served as a scraper to tan skin, or as a knife faunal remains, but these show no signs of having been to cut meat, or as a hand axe to cut wood. This affords an manipulated. Nearby sites, LA2A, LA2B and LA2D, and explanation of behavior that goes beyond the possibilities the more distant LA1 have also provided stone tools; LA1 of deducing a tool’s function from its shape. In certain and LA2C, with an age of 2.34 Ma, are the oldest sites with instances lithic tools might have been used as wood- utensils in Kenya (Tiercelin et al., 2010). working tools. Indications of the use of wood instruments The importance of the Lokalalei tools lies primarily in are not rare in the Late Pleistocene. In the Middle Pleis- the presence of abundant debris, which allows establishing tocene, the finding of plant microremains (phytoliths, fi- the sequence of tool making in situ. Helene Roche et al. bers) on the edges of Peninj (Tanzania) Acheulean bifaces (1999) have argued that the technique used by the makers is the earliest proof of processing of wood with artifacts of these tools required very careful preparation and use of (Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001). the materials, previously unimaginable for such early The examination of the marks that tools leave on fossil hominins. This suggested that the cognitive capacities of bones provides direct evidence of their function. Tapho- those toolmakers were more developed than what is usually nomic interpretations of cutmarks suggest hominins believed. One of the cores was hit up to 20 times to extract defleshed and broke the bones to obtain food. This butchery flakes, and the careful choice of the materials (mostly function related to meat intake portrays early hominins as volcanic lavas like basalt) indicates that those who scavengers capable of taking advantage of the carcasses of manipulated them knew their mechanical properties well. the prey of savanna predators (Blumenschine, 1987). But in some instances the evidence suggests other hypotheses. Travis Pickering et al. (2000) analyzed the cutmarks fl in icted by a stone tool on a right maxilla from locality Stw TABLE 44.1 The Oldest Cultures 53 at Sterkfontein Member 5. The species to which the specimen belongs is unclear, but it is certainly a hominin. Name Localities Age (Ma) They noted that “[t]he location of the marks on the lateral Lokalalei West Turkana 2.34 aspect of the zygomatic process of the maxilla is consistent Shungura Omo 2.2e2.0 with that expected from slicing through the masseter Hadar Hadar 2.33 muscle, presumably to remove the mandible from the cranium.” In other words, a hominin from Sterkfontein Gona Middle Awash 2.5e2.6 Member 5 dismembered the remains of another. 734 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

Lokalalei findings indicate that hand control and, suggest a “pre-Oldowan” industry. Rather, the Oldowan therefore, brain development, must have been already quite industry would have remained in stasis (presence without developed for nearly two and a half million years ago. The notable changes) for at least a million years. The precision question of what species would have been responsible for of the Gona instruments led Sileshi Semaw’s team to as- manipulating these artifacts is a different matter, as we have sume that their authors were not novices, so even earlier repeatedly pointed out. James Steele (1999) raised the issue lithic industries might be discovered in the future. of the cognitive capacities and knowledge of the authors of That future may have already arrived. Nature (Callaway, the Lokalalei 2C tools. Steele admitted that the available 2015) has reported the finding of stone cores and flakes, evidence does not allow going beyond hypotheses similar likely intentionally crafted, at the Lomekwi site, west of to the one which attributed the Olduvai tools to H. habilis Kenya’s Lake Turkana. The sediments are dated 3.3 Ma, because of its larger cranial capacity compared with much older than H. habilis. Sonia Harmand of Stony Brook P. boisei. The Lokalalei findings indicate that almost two University in New York reported the findings at a meeting of and a half million years ago the motor control of the hands, the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco on April 14, and thus the development of the brain, must have been 2015. Harmand’s team concluded that the tools represent a considerable. The identity of the species responsible for distinct culture, which they have named the Lomekwian manipulating those artifacts is a different issue, difficult to culture. Harmand pointed out at the meeting of the Paleo- answer. In his commentary about Roche and colleagues’ anthropology Society that the cores are enormous, some discovery, Steele (1999) refused to give a definitive answer. weighing as much as 15 kg, which is surprising considering He simply argued that we still have similar doubts to those the small size of the australopithecines. How could they of the authors who, in 1964, associated the tools found at handle such large stones? And what were they used for? Olduvai with the species H. habilis. Bernard Wood (1997) wondered about the authors of The Middle Awash region includes many sites that have the tools found at the site. The great stasis of the Oldowan yielded Oldowan and Acheuleanda culture which replaced culture suggested by the tools raises a problem for the usual the Oldowan over timedtools, described for the first time assignation of the Oldowan tradition to H. habilis. Given by Maurice Taieb (1974) in his doctoral thesis. A Homo that the latest Oldowan tools are about 1.5 -Ma old, this maxilla (AL 666-1) was found in association with Oldowan tradition spans close to a million years. This is why Wood tools at Hadar (Ethiopia), to the north of Middle Awash. (1997) noted that if Oldowan tools had to be attributed to a The sediments from the upper part of the Kada Hadar particular hominin, then the only species that was present Member were estimated to 2.33 Ma; this was the earliest during the whole interval was P. boisei. This is circum- association between lithic industry and hominin remains stantial evidence in favor of the notion that robust aus- (Kimbel et al., 1996). The 34 instruments found in the 1974 tralopiths manufactured tools. But as we have mentioned campaign (indicative of a low density of lithic remains) are several times in this book, there is no need for making a typical of Oldowan culture: choppers and flakes. In addi- close identification between hominin species and lithic tion, three primitive bifaces, known as end-choppers, traditions, because cultural sharing must have been quite appeared on the surface, but it is difficult to associate these common. In any case, de Heinzelin et al. (1999) attributed tools with the excavated ones. the Gona utensils to the species Australopithecus garhi, The earliest known instruments have been found at the whose specimens were found at Bouri, 96 -km south of Gona site (Ethiopia), within the Middle Awash area, in where the tools come from. sediments dated to 2.6e2.5 Ma by correlation of the The comparison between instruments from different archaeological localities with sediments dated with the sites has its limitations. As Glynn Isaac (1969) noted, it is 40Ar/39Ar method and paleomagnetism (Semaw et al., not uncommon to find that the differences between the 1997). Thus, they are about 200,000 years older than the Oldowan techniques found at different locations of the Lokalalei tools. same age are as large as those used to differentiate suc- Gona has provided numerous tools, up to 2970, cessive Oldowan stages, or even larger. This problem il- including cores, flakes, and debris. Many of the tools were lustrates that the complexity of a lithic instrument is a constructed in situ. No modified flakes have been found, function of its age, but also of the needs of the toolmaker. but the industry appears very similar to the early samples from Olduvai. Sileshi Semaw et al. (1997) attributed the THE TRANSITION MODE 1 (OLDOWAN) differences, such as the greater size of the Gona cores, to TO MODE 2 (ACHEULEAN) the distance between the site and the places where the raw materials (trachyte) were obtained; these are closer in Gona Mode 2, or Acheulean culture, corresponds to a new than in other instances. As hominins have not been found at carving procedure whose most characteristic element is the the site, it is difficult to attribute the tools to any particular biface, “teardrop shaped in outline, biconvex in cross- taxon. Semaw et al. (1997) believed it was unnecessary to section, and commonly manufactured on large (more than Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 735

10 cm) unifacially or bifacially flaked cobbles, flakes, and (1969) argued that the improvement of the necessary slabs” (Noll and Petraglia, 2003). These tools, made with techniques to go from the Oldowan to the Acheulean tra- great care, were identified for the first time at the St. Acheul ditions could not have taken place gradually. A completely site (France), and are known as “Acheulean industrial new type of manipulation would have appeared with complex” or “Acheulean culture” (Mode 2). Acheulean Acheulean culture, a true change in the way of carrying out culture appeared in East Africa over 1.7 Ma, and extended the operations involved in tool making. A similar argument to the rest of the Old World reaching Europe, where the has been made by Sileshi Semaw et al. (2009) when oldest Acheulean tools received the local name of “Abbe- interpreting the sequence of cultural change. Depending on villian industry.” The life of the Acheulean continued in the archaeological record of Gona (Ethiopia) and other Europe until about 50,000 years ago, although since African locations, Semaw et al. (2009) concluded that the 0.3 Ma more advanced utensils could be found from other Mode II would have arisen rather abruptly by a rapid cultural traditions, the Mousterian or Mode 3, which we transition from the Oldowan technique. will discuss later. If so, it would be important to determine exactly when Mary Leakey (1975) described the transition observable that jump forward occurred and to establish the temporal at Olduvai from perfected Oldowan tools to a different and distribution of the different cultural traditions. Such more advanced industry. The oldest instruments of Old- detailed knowledge is not easy to achieve. The Olduvai site uvai, which come from Bed I, were in a level dated by does not reveal precisely when the cultural change took 40K/40Ar method at 1.7e1.76 Ma (Evernden and Curtiss, place. The earliest instruments, from Bed I, are found in a 1965). The first Acheulean tools are from Bed II. Between level dated to 1.7e1.76 by the potassium/argon method both beds there are tuffs, but the section that corresponds (Evernden and Curtiss, 1965). The later Acheulean utensils precisely to the time of the transition between the two appeared at the Kalambo Falls locality at Olduvai, in as- cultures cannot be precisely dated (Isaac, 1969). If, in sociation with wood and coal materials. The age of these addition, we point out that both cultures overlap in Olduvai materials was estimated by the 14C method at 60,000 years for a considerable time, with the concurrent presence of (Vogel and Waterbolk, 1967). There are other volcanic utensils from both Mode 1 and 2, the difficulties to deter- tuffs between both points, but the 1.6 Ma interval between mine the precise moment of the cultural transition increase. the most recent level and Kalambo Falls limits the precision Nevertheless, a gradual transition from Oldowan culture to of the chronometry. This period corresponds precisely to Acheulean culture was justified by the sequence established the time of the transition between both cultures (Isaac, by Mary Leakey for the Olduvai beds (Table 44.2). 1969). If we take into account the evolution within Mode 1, Louis Leakey (1951) had previously considered the with developed Oldowan tools that overlap in time with coexistence of cultures and the evolution of Oldowan Acheulean ones, the difficulties involved in the description instruments as evidence of gradual change. However, of the cultural change increase. subsequent studies painted another scenario. Glynn Isaac The technical evolution from Mode 1 to Mode 2 can also be studied at other places, such as the Humbu Formation from the Peninj site, to the west of Lake Natron (Tanzania). After the discovery made by the Leakys and Isaac in 1967, TABLE 44.2 Cultural Sequence at Olduvai authors such as Amini Mturi (1987) or Kathy Schick and Established by Mary Leakey (1975, Modified) Nicholas Toth (1993) carried out research at the Natron area. Number Several Natron sites show a transition from Oldowan to Beds Age in Ma of Pieces Industries Acheulean cultures close to 1.5 Ma (Schick and Toth, 1993). Masek 0.2 187 Acheulean The correlation of the Peninj and Olduvai sediments allows fi IV 0.7e0.2 686 Acheulean the identi cation of the Oldowan/Acheulean transition with the upper strata of Bed II from Olduvai. But neither Olduvai 979 Developed nor the western area of Lake Natron allow a more precise Oldowan C estimate of the time of the change. e Middle part 1.5 0.7 99 Acheulean Another site excavated after the works at Olduvai and of III Peninj, Olorgesailie (Kenya), provided precise dating (by Developed means of the 40K/40Ar method) for the Acheulean tools Oldowan C from Members 5 through 8 of that Formation, but they Middle part 1.7e1.5 683 Developed are recent sediments, estimated to between 0.70 and of II Oldowan A 0.75 Ma (Bye et al., 1987). The precise time of the sub- I and lower 1.9e1.7 537 Oldowan stitution of Oldowan by Acheulean tools cannot be speci- part of II fied. Any group of hominins capable of using Acheulean techniques could have very well employed, on occasions, 736 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

simple tools to carry out tasks which did not require sequence”). While a chopper and a protobiface respond to complex instruments. the same chaîne opératoire, the manufacture of Acheulean An illustrative example is the large number of Acheu- bifaces is the result of a completely different way of lean artifacts found at Locality eight of the Gadeb site designing and producing stone tools. The main objective of (Ethiopia) during the 1975 and 1977 campaigns. One Oldowan technique was to produce an edge, with little thousand eight hundred forty-nine elements, including 251 concern for its shape. However, Acheulean bifaces had a hand axes and knives, were found at the 8A area, a very very precise outline, which evinces the presence of design small excavation; whereas 20,267 artifacts appeared at 8E from the very beginning. The existence of design has (Clark and Kurashina, 1979). The age estimates for the favored speculation about the intentions of the toolmakers. different Gadeb localities with lithic remains are imprecise: In the tradition of Leroi-Gourhan, Nathan Schlanger they range from 0.7 to 1.5 Ma. These localities contain, in (1994) suggested that the sequence of operations in the addition to Acheulean tools, developed Oldowan utensils, making of tools reflects an intention and a mental level of which led J. Desmond Clark and Hiro Kurashina (1979) to some complexity. One might, accordingly, distinguish be- conclude that two groups of hominins would have alter- tween two types of “knowledge”: nated at Gadeb, each with its own cultural tradition. But it l Practical knowledge, necessary for any carving opera- is curious that the examination of the bones from Gadeb tion. It is what psychologists call “procedural knowl- showed that the butchery activities had been carried out edge,” as it is needed to ride a bicycle without falling. mostly with the more primitive hand axes, those belonging l Abstract knowledge, or posing problems and their solu- to developed Oldowan. This fact raises an alternative tions. This is closer to “declarative knowledge,” such as interpretation, namely, that tools obtained by advanced designing a route for cycling around town from one techniques are not necessary for defleshing tasks. place to another with the least risk. Konso-Gardula (Ethiopia), south of the River Awash and east of River Omo, has allowed the most precise dating An easy way to distinguish between both is to under- of the beginning of the Acheulean culture. In addition, it stand that declarative knowledge can be transmitted has provided the oldest-known tools belonging to that through a spoken or written description, while the proce- culture. Since its discovery in 1991, Konso-Gardula has dural knowledge cannot. However, as we will discuss, it is provided a great number of tools, which include rudimen- doubtful that the Acheulean culture involves accurate tary bifaces, trihedral-shaped burins, cores, and flakes, mental models of the tools that will be obtained, which together with two hominin specimens, a molar and an brings into question the very chaîne opératoire of the almost complete left mandible (Asfaw et al., 1992). The Acheulean. The manufacture of accessories for transporting sediments were dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method to objects such as stones would be the real innovation of 1.34e1.38 Ma (Asfaw et al., 1992). Berhane Asfaw and Mode 2 in that hypothesis. colleagues (1992) associate the Konso-Gardula hominin Despite such doubts, the most common view holds that specimens with the Homo ergaster specimens from Koobi while a chopper and a protobiface belong to the same Fora, especially with KNM-ER 992. chaîne opératoire, obtaining Acheulean bifaces is the result of an entirely different approach when designing and pro- THE ACHEULEAN TECHNIQUE ducing a stone tool. The most conspicuous novelty is the diversity of Acheulean instruments. Sometimes it is diffi- To what extent can the Acheulean tradition be considered a cult to assign a function to a stone tool. We have already continuation or a rupture regarding Oldowan? Was devel- seen that Oldowan chaîne opératoire and flakes have been oped Oldowan a transition phase toward subsequent cul- interpreted both as simple debris and as valuable tools. tures? Mary Leakey (1966) believed that developed However, Acheulean tools include knives, hammers, axes, Oldowan was associated with the presence of primitive and scrapers, whose function seems clear. The materials hand axes, protobifaces that anticipated Acheulean bifaces. used to manufacture lithic instruments are also more varied However, protobifaces cannot be strictly considered as a within the new tradition. But the most notorious difference transitional form between Oldowan and Acheulean tech- associated with the Acheulean culture is the tool we niques. Marcel Otte (2003) argued that natural constraints mentioned before: the hand axe. (eg, mechanical laws of the raw materials) forces the The work of Glynn Isaac (1969, 1975, 1978, 1984) in manufacture of similar forms, which thus may be consid- Olorgesailie and Peninj (Tanzania) showed the main role of ered successive stages of a single or very close elaboration hand axes in the form of large flakes (Large Flake sequence, although this may not always be the case. Acheulean, LFA) of more than 10 cm, in African Lower The successive manipulation of a core, passing through Paleolithic tool production. The study by Ignacio de la several steps until the desired tool is obtained, is a task that Torre et al. (2008) on the amount of raw material used for Leroi-Gourhan (1964) named chaîne opératoire (“working manufacturing various tools within two lithic sets found Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 737

in Peninj, RHS-Mugulud, and MHS-Bayasi, showed point for the development of the Acheulean culture. convincingly that the essential goal of hominins was to Incidentally, it would also create a significantrisktothose obtain large cutting tools, among which are the cleavers who had to manipulate stones of large size (Schick and (without retouched edge), hand axes, and flakes, to use as Toth, 1993). knives. The carving technique used followed a character- Schick and Toth (1993) noted that bifaces can also be istic pattern with a succession of steps not exclusive to obtained, in the absence of sufficiently large raw material, Peninj carvings; it is the key to the Acheulean tradition: from smaller cores similar to those that served as a starting point for the manufacture of Oldowan choppers. But the 1. The transformation of raw materials to be converted manipulation of large blocks of material (mostly lava and into cutting instruments involved, first, selecting suit- quartzite) to produce long flakes seems to have been the able large stones to carve. The availability or lack of turning point for the development of the Acheulean culture. stone quarries with such raw materials may lead to sig- It would also have involved risk for those who had to nificant differences between the cultural content of manipulate stones of large size (Schick and Toth, 1993). different sites. The oldest Acheulean tool presence documented cor- 2. Once the rock is selected, it is reduced by chipping off responds to the Kokiselei 4 site of Nachukui formation, large flakes until obtaining still sizable blocks with a West Turkana (Kenya). By radiometry of nearby volcanic suitable form to begin careful carving. tuffs (40Ar/39Ar), stratigraphic equivalence with Koobi Fora 3. The blocks are worked in chaîne opératoire, obtaining and paleomagnetism, Christopher Lepre et al. (2011) three different sizes of flake: small, medium, and large. assigned to the terrain of Kokiselei 4 an age of 1.76 Ma. The large flake, still of considerable size, is a hand axe The site has the added advantage of also containing Old- in its basic shape which still needs a sharpened edge. owan utensils, which supports the idea that Mode 1 and 4. Larger flakes, which contrast with the intermediate ones Mode 2 technologies were not mutually exclusive. Lepre by size, shape, and weight, are subjected to precision et al. (2011) argued as alternative hypotheses for the carving, with a number of successive blows to achieve presence of Acheulean tools at Kokiselei 4, that they were its edge and final form: thus, an LFA appears. The num- either brought there from another locationdunidentified ber and accuracy of the blows contrast with the less sys- yetdor carved by the same hominins of the site which tematic and manipulated of the protobifaces. produced Oldowan tools. Peninj hand axes weighed, once finished, about 1 kg, so The last Acheulean utensils of East Africa, that is, the the waste materials from the large initial stones are abun- most recent, are from Kalambo Falls location (Tanzania), dant. In the intermediate stages of the Acheulean chaîne associated with coal and wood materials. The age of these opératoire, flakes of different sizes are obtained, which can materials was fixed by 14C method at 60,000 years (Vogel be in turn simultaneously used as tools for further carving. and Waterbolk, 1967). With regard to South Africa, tools Smaller chips come from preparing the blocks or from attributed to the Late Acheulan appear in various sitesd shaping the hand axe. LFA production is complex and in Cape Hangklip, Canteen Kopje (stratum 2A), Montagu most hand axes there are notches of 2e3 -cm long, which cave, Wonderwerk cave, Rooidam, Duinefontain 2, for show that fragments, or chips, were knocked ofdsimilar to exampledwith an age of z0.2 Ma (Kuman, 2007). those obtained intentionally in the Oldowan traditiondbut they are actually the result of percussion while retouching. CULTURE AND DISPERSAL Medium-size flakes from LFA carving were found both in Olduvai and Peninj, although they are larger in the latter The occasional presence of Oldowan tools is not proof location (de la Torre et al., 2008). They are large but very indicating that a certain group had a primitive cultural thin flakes, so that their volume and weight are modest. condition. It is possible to find simple carvings in epochs They could have served for carving tasks or used as blades, and places that correspond to a more advanced industry. just in the same condition as we have found them. There is no reason to manufacture a biface by a long and The most advanced Acheulean technique, with sym- complex process if what is needed at a given time is a metrical bifaces and carefully carved edges, required a simple flake. But the argument does not work in reverse. soft-hammer technique. This method consists in striking The presence of Mode 2 clearly indicates a technological the stone core obtained in step 3 with a hammer of lesser development. hardness, such as of wood or bone. The blows delivered As we have seen, Oldowan culture is generally attrib- withsuchatoolallowamoreprecisecontrolbutrequires, uted to H. habilis. However, the identification of the of course, much more labor. A detailed description of the Acheulean culture with the African Homo erectus is also process was provided by SchickandToth(1993).The very common. The strength of the bond of Acheulean/ manipulation of large stones (mostly basalt and quartzite) erectus led Louis Leakey to consider the emergence of for making hand axes seems to have been the turning Acheulean tools at Olduvai as the result of an invasion by 738 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

H. erectus from other localities (Isaac, 1969). Fossils of the occupied during the last segment of the Olduvai subchron, taxon H. habilis are African, but numerous exemplars ie, between the range of 1.85e1.78 Ma. In the authors’ which can be attributed to H. erectus have appeared out of opinion, such an antiquity implies that the Georgia speci- Africa. In fact, the taxon was named by Eugène Dubois mens precede the African H. erectus or H. ergaster (1894) from fossils found in Trinil, Java. Asians and Af- emergence. rican specimens had remarkable similarities, but also some But Dmanisi is not the only site providing us with ev- differences, a fact that has led to the proposal of the species idence of the migration out of the African continent. In the H. ergaster for the African erectus (Groves and Mazák, Yiron site, to the North of Israel near the valley of the 1975). Although there is no general consensus on the need Jordan River, instruments were found in 1981 consisting of for that distinct taxon, those who deny the validity of flakes of a very primitive appearance, adding to other more H. ergaster commonly refer to Asian erectus as H. erectus modern tools previously found. The primitive artifacts were sensus stricto, and to the African as H. erectus sensu lato. found in the stratigraphic horizon below the basaltic vol- Why is it necessary to propose two different species, or canic intrusion dated by radiometry at 2.4 Ma, thus the age two degrees of the same species, when referring to of Yiron tools was considered comparable to the oldest H. erectus? One of the main reasons for the need to culture of Mode 1 from the Rift (Ronen, 2006). distinguish two groups of populations has to do with the At least four other sites in Israel have provided old lithic culture. The oldest H. erectus of Java and China, unlike utensils. Chronologically, Yiron is followed by the Erk-el- their coetaneous in Africa, did not exhibit Mode 2 culture. Ahmar formation, a few kilometers south of Ubeidiya, also Obviously, the occupation of Asia began with one or in the Jordan Valley, where cores and silex flakes were more African hominin dispersals. The natural way out of found (Tchernov, 1999). After a few failures to date it by Africa is the Levantine corridordMiddle and Near Eastda paleomagnetism, the magnetostratigraphy of the Erk-el- path that is widely understood as the one used by hominins Ahmar formation made by Hagai Ron and Shaul Levi during their various departures from the African continent. (2001) correlated the normal events of the area with the Located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, Olduvai subchron, attributing it thus an age of Georgia is part of the transit area between Africa, Asia, and 1.96e1.78 Ma. However, the tools appeared at 1.5 km from Europe. A site in Georgia, Dmanisi, has provided the best the collected samples. Ron and Levi (Ron and Levi, 2001) existing evidence to characterize the first hominin exit from accepted an age for the silex utensils of 1.7e2.0 Ma, a date their continent of origin. Since the initial discovery of a supported by fauna studies (Tchernov, 1987), and that, by jaw, D211 (Gabunia and Vekua, 1995) in Dmanisi, other the way, is coincident with that of Dmanisi. Ubeidiya cranial specimens have appeared, such as D2280 and (Israel) is a locality between Yiron and Erk-el-Ahmar. Be- D2282 (Gabunia et al., 2000), of modest volumed775 and tween 1959 and 1999, numerous lithic instruments were 650 cm3 respectively. In 2002 the existence of another found, similar in age and appearance to those at the cranium of the same age, D2700, was reported (Vekua OldowaneAcheulean transition of Olduvai Bed II, along et al., 2002) that had an even smaller volume: 600 cm3.We with cranial fragments, a molar, and an incisor attributed offer these details to contextualize the problem of attrib- Homo sp. indet (Tobias, 1966), or to Homo cf. erectus uting to which species these fossils belong. After hesitating (Tchernov, 1986). An additional incisor was described in to attribute them to H. habilis or H. ergaster, Léo Gabunia 2002 (Belmaker et al., 2002). The horizon with hominin et al. (2002) proposed for Dmanisi hominins a new species: remains was dated by fauna comparisons and stratigraphic Homo georgicus. Two more exemplars, a cranium D3444 study at z1.4 Ma, on the basis of the deposits age and tooth and its associated jaw D3900, were discovered in similarities with KNM-ER 15000 and the Dmanisi speci- 2002e2004 campaigns (Lordkipanidze et al., 2005, 2006). mens. Miriam Belmaker et al. (2002) maintained that the New postcranial specimens from Dmanisi, belonging to an last incisor found in Ubeidiya, UB 335, could be tentatively adolescent and three adults, one of large size and two identified as H. ergaster. The utensils from Gesher Benot smaller, were described in 2007 (Lordkipanidze et al., Ya’aqov are 0.8 Ma of age, dated by paleomagnetism. 2007). Although the authors did not ascribe the remains to Finally, utensils found in Bizat Ruhama are younger than any particular species, they indicated that the Dmanisi set Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, which belongs to the lower part of lack those derived features characteristic of H. erectus. the Matuyama chron (in both cases the information comes Besides these fossils, from Dmanisi also come stone from Ronen, 2006). artifacts and animal bones with cutting and percussion All the tools found in these sites, which indicate the first marks. More than 8000dsome choppers and scrapers, and dispersals out of Africa, are of Mode 1. Around abundant flakesdhave been found in the two stratigraphic 1.7e1.6 Ma hominins undertook various successful dis- units, A and B, of the site. Reid Ferring et al. (2011) persals throughout Asia, reaching the SoutheastdJava maintained that the stratigraphic study of the Dmanisi set of (Indonesia)dand the Far EastdChina. This means that lithic utensils indicates that this place was repeatedly vast zones of the Asian continent were occupied without Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 739

Acheulean utensils. However, later migrations brought the Nihewan basin has four stratigraphic horizons in which Mode 2 out of Africa as well. Mode 1 utensils have appeared, which are, from top to Acheulean instruments have a geographical eastern bottom, Banshan, MJG-I, MJG-II, and MJG-III (Table 44.3). limit in the Indian subcontinent. With a detailed compila- In accordance with paleomagnetic studies, the four tion of all the available evidence at that time, Hallam beds with tools of Majuangou are distributed over Movius (1948) established two areas: the first in Africa, 340,000 years, between Olduvai and Cobb Mountain sub- West Asia, and West Europe, and the second ranging from chrons. Fossils of mollusk shells and aquatic plants indi- the Far East to Southeast Asia. During the Middle Pleis- cate a lacustrine environment. The lower bed is of 1.66 Ma tocene, both had lithic industries, corresponding to different (Zhu et al., 2004). technical levels: choppersdie, Mode 1din the East, and In the Yangtze riverbed, Sichuan province, is Longgupo bifacesdMode 2din the West. This is known as the site, with Mode 1 instruments of an uncertain age. They “Movius line,” the virtual limit that separates these two could be 1.9e1.7 Ma, in accordance to paleomagnetism vast areas. (Wanpo et al., 1995), but electron spin resonance analysis The Movius line was not a permanent obstacle for a long on the cave specimens’ dental enamel have indicated a period of time. Truman Simanjuntak et al. (2010) claimed much later date. that around 0.8 Ma a noticeable change occurred in Java, Cultural indications of very ancient human presence when tools emerged which have been classified as Acheu- exist at Yuanmou, with four members, which are, from the lean by these authors. Ngebung cleavers are the oldest oldest to the youngest, M1 (lacustrine and fluviolacustrine indication, followed by the three human occupations of deposits), M2 (fluvial), M3 (fluvial), and M4 (fluvial and Song Terus cave (Punung, East Java), among which alluvial) (Zhu et al., 2008). The Member M4 in Niu- the “Terus period,” of 0.3 to c. 0.1 Ma, is the oldest jiangbao has provided hominin remains and four stone tools (Simanjuntak et al., 2010). Other Southeast Asian locations which were found in 1973: a scraper, a small biface core, which also contain ancient lithic utensils are the island of and two flakes of Mode 1 with evidence of laborious pro- Flores (Mata Menge site), with an age of 0.88e0.8 Ma duction (Yuan et al., 1984). obtained by fission track (Morwood et al., 1998), Bukit All the utensils of the described Chinese sites belong to Bunuh (Malaysia), Ogan (Sumatra), Sembiran (Bali), Nul- Mode 1 (Oldowan). However, it has been claimed that tools baki (West Timor), Wallanae (Sulawesi) and Arubo (Luzon, from more modern locations correspond to Mode 2. Thus, Philippines) (Simanjuntak et al., 2010), as sufficient exam- Yamei et al. (2000) pointed out the presence at various sites ples of a Mode 2 late dispersal. The overview of the various in Bose basin, Guanxi province in Southern China, of more described industries of Southeast Asia led Sheila Mishra advanced tools. Although two-thirds of the basin contain et al. (2010) to draw several somewhat controversial con- only monoface tools, from the western area of Bosedin clusions with regard to cultural dispersion. First, that Mode which the adequate raw material existsdcome large cutting 2 reached Java and other Asian areas. Second, an indicative tools bifaces of 803,000 3000 years of age, described by sequence of an initial period with an absence of large hand Yamei et al. (2000). According to that presence, Yamei axes does not actually exist in India; all occupations of et al. (2000) affirm that “Acheulean-like tools in the mid- Southeast Asia would have had the set H. erectus/LFA as a Pleistocene of South China imply that Mode 2 technical protagonist. Third, a more bold assumption, India might advances were manifested in East Asia contemporaneously have been both the origin of Mode 2 and of H. erectus,as with handaxe technology in Africa and western Eurasia.” well as the source of what later would become their African In the same Bose basin, but in its northern zoned counterparts (H. ergaster and the Acheulean technique) by a Fengshudao sitedwere found an industry set with an reverse dispersal from Asia to Africa. abundance of hand axes, although smaller in size, of an Regarding China, the oldest tools come from the basins age of 0.8 Ma, obtained by the 40Ar/39Ar method (Zhang of Yuanmou and Nihewan. Majuangou, the eastern border of et al., 2010). Pu Zhang et al. (2010) attributed these

TABLE 44.3 Stratigraphic Horizons With Lithic Tools of Majuangou (Zhu et al., 2004)

Bed Location Area (m2) 3 Depth (in cm) of the Excavation Year Number of Tools Banshan 44.3e45 m 2 70 1990 95 MJG-I 65.0e65.5 20 50 1993 111 MJG-II 73.2e73.56 40 36 2001e2002 226 MJG-III 75.0e75.5 85 50 2001e2002 443 740 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

characteristics to Fengshudao industry and, in particular, subject to large population movements. As Marcel Otte the absence of cleavers due to the lack of adequate raw (2010) has said, the Movius line exists, rather, as a frontier, material (big blocks). In their view, the tools correspond to it is like a veil which moves as time passes by the hand of the variability of the Acheulean, with its own particular- ethnic traditions. Neither these should be confused with ities, such as unidirectional carving. carving techniques, nor is it possible to identify a biface or hand axe with an Acheulean utensil. In the strictest sense, AN ANCIENT MODE 2 IN ASIA? Mode 2 refers to a specific chaîne opératoire which never is the first to appear in a site, nor is it required to be The cultural dispersal hypotheses, as the one by Sheila exclusive, because it can coexist with simpler carvings. Mishra et al. (2010) mentioned before, or any other argu- Otte (2010) recognized that, exceptionally, bifaces are ment in favor of an ancient Mode 2 in the Far East (Java present in the Middle Paleolithic of China, but a close look and China), such as that of Hou Yamei et al. (2000), at Bose hand axes led him to argue that they cannot be stumble upon the idea of Asia colonization, which is widely considered Mode 2 at all. They would be the result of a accepted as the most probable and based on the Movius discovery: from cores of adequate origin, bifaces could be model. In fact, the controversy between the idea of an obtained with not much manipulation. The procedure is the ancient presence of LFA in Java and the Movius line is opposite of Olorgesailie or Peninj technique, in which a more substantial. Mishra et al., in a paper of 2010 as well as huge block is flaked to obtain LFA. In an unfortunate in other previous works, denied the presence of different expression, Marcel Otte (2010) qualified the Chinese chaînes opératoires characteristics of Mode 1 and Mode 2, Acheulean as a “research artifact.” In the best of cases, it which is tantamount to denying the distinction between could be considered as cultural parallelism. these two techniques. If it is the same industry with a higher or lesser development encompassing the entire ancient THE TRANSITION MODE 2 (ACHEULEAN) world, then the Movius line lacks meaning. However, in TO MODE 3 (MOUSTERIAN) spite of the limitations of a simple geographic scheme, the common view accepts the Movius line, although its Mode 3, or Mousterian culture, is the lithic tool tradition meaning has been much debated and there are still details to that evolved in Europe from Acheulean culture during the be explained, such as the absence of bifaces in Eastern Middle Paleolithic. The name comes from the Le Moustier Europe. site (Dordogne, France), and was given by the prehistorian A cultural dispersal synthesis of the Middle Paleolithic Gabriel de Mortillet in the 19th century, when he divided highlights the following points indicated by Ofer Bar-Yosef the Stone Age known at the time in different periods and Miriam Belmaker (2011): according to the technologies he had identified (Mortillet, 1897). Mortillet introduced the terms Mousterian, Auri- l absence of Acheulean culture in Southeast Asia gnacian, and Magdalenian, in order of increasing l presence in numerous locations of Mode 2 in Western complexity, to designate the tools from the French sites of AsiadNear Eastddecreasing abundance of bifaces as Le Moustier, Aurignac, and La Magdalene. However, as we we approach the EastdCaucasus and Anatolia said earlier, almost all the sites belonging to the Würm l discontinuity between the two areas with evident pres- glacial period mentioned in the previous chapter contain ence of Mode 2, the Levant, and India Mousterian tools. In many instances, their lower archaeo- l absence of Mode 2 in China, with the exception of Bose logical levels also show the transition of Acheulean to basin Mousterian tools, and even from the latter to Aurignacian The best explanation for cultural dispersal patterns of ones. The archaeological richness and sedimentary breadth that kind requires that migrations from and to the west were of some of these sites, like La Ferrassie, La Quina, and discontinuous, in subsequent waves. But the evidence in Combe-Grenal, grants them a special interest for studying relation to Java indicated by Sheila Mishra et al. (2010) the interaction between cultural utensils and adaptive re- cannot be thus justified. Critiques, like that of Parth sponses. Most European sites belonging to the Würm Chauhan (2010), point to an incorrect age estimation due to glacial period contain Mousterian tools. Similar utensils inherent dating problems of the 230Th/234U technique. have appeared in the Near East, at Tabun, Skuhl, and Although it is possible that the Acheulean arrived in Qafzeh. Southeast Asia as early as the Brunhes-Matuyama limit, ie, Mousterian techniques changed in time. Geoffrey 0.78 Ma, additional evidence is required. Clark’s (1997) study of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic Naturally, the problem of cultural dispersal doesn’t end cultural stages convincingly demonstrated how wrong it is with the absence or presence of Mode 2 in the Far East. to speak about “Mousterian” as a closed tradition, with Indeed, local particularities lead to the need to make more precise limits, or as a unit with precise temporal boundaries. precise distinctions to account for what was an evolution Even so, we will talk about a Mousterian style, as Clark Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 741

himself did, which becomes apparent when compared with difficulties inherent in associating a given species with a the Upper Paleolithic technical and artistic innovations cultural tradition, it was beyond doubt that Mousterian which constitute Mode 4. However, to understand the culture was part of the Neandertal identity. Exclusively? magnitude of Mode 3, we must extend the consideration of This perception changed with the reinterpretation of the “Mousterian culture” from lithic tools to other products and Near East sites (Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, 1993). techniques that appear at Mousterian sites. In a broad sense, Scrapers and Levallois points, which were very similar to Mode 3 culture includes controversial features, such as the typical European ones, turned up there. Neandertals objects created with a decorative intention and indications also existed there, of course, but in contrast with European of funerary practices. sites a distinction could not be drawn between localities Let us begin with the Mousterian tool-making tech- that had housed Neandertals and anatomically modern niques. They were used to produce tools that were much humans solely on the grounds of the cultural traditions. The more specialized than Acheulean ones, The most typical more or less systematic distinction between Neandertale Mousterian tools found in Europe and the Near East are Mousterian and Cro-MagnoneAurignacian helped to flakes produced by means of the Levallois technique, which clarify the situation in Europe. But it could not be trans- were subsequently modified to produce diverse and shaper ferred to the Near East, where sites occupied by Neander- edges. Objects made from bone are less frequent, but up to tals and those inhabited by anatomically modern humans, 60 types of flakes and stone foils can be identified, which proto-Cro-Magnons, yielded the same Mousterian tradi- served different functions (Bordes, 1979). tion utensils. The Levallois technique appeared during the Acheulean This coincidence implies several things. First, that cul- period, and was used ever since. The oldest Levallois tural sharing was common during the Middle Paleolithic, at carvings are probably c. 400 ka and come from the Lake least in Levant sites. Second, that during the initial stages of Baringo region (Kenya) (Tryon, 2006). Its pinnacle was their occupation of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, reached during the Mousterian culture. The purpose of this anatomically modern humans made use of the same utensils technique is to produce flakes or foils with a very precise as Neandertals. Hence, it seems that at the time Skuhl and shape from stone cores that serve as raw material. The cores Qafzeh were inhabited, there was no technical superiority must first be carefully prepared by trimming their edges to of modern humans over Neandertals. The third and most remove small flakes until the core has the correct shape. important implication has to do with the inferences that can Thereafter, with the last blow, the desired flakeda Leval- be made because Neandertals and H. sapiens shared iden- lois point, for instancedis obtained. The final results of the tical tool-making techniques. As we have already seen, the process, which include points, scrapers, and other in- interpretation of the mental processes involved in the pro- struments, are subsequently modified to sharpen their duction of tools suggests that complex mental capabilities edges. The amazing care with which the material was are required to produce stone tools. We are now presented worked constitutes, according to Bordes (1953), evidence with solid proof that Neandertals and modern humans that these tools were intended to last for a long time in a shared techniques. Does this mean that Neandertal cogni- permanent living location. tive abilities to produce tools were as complex as those Tools obtained by means of the Levallois technique are, currently characteristic of our own species? Many authors, as we said earlier, typical of European and Near East headed by Trinkaus, Howells, and Zilhão, believe so. But Mousterian sites. Bifaces, on the contrarydso abundant in some authors arguing in favor of high cognitive capacities Acheulean sitesdare scarce. The difference has to do in Neandertals went beyond lithic culture shared at the Near mostly with the manipulation of the tools; scrapers were East. They presented other kinds of items which, in their already produced using Acheulean, and even Oldowan, opinion, were indications of Neandertal aesthetic, religious, techniques. The novelty lies in the abundance and the symbolic, and even maybe linguistic, capacities. careful tool retouching. The possibility that Neandertals buried their dead is the best basis to attribute transcendental thought to them. NEANDERTALS AND MOUSTERIAN Voluntary burial is indicative of respect and appreciation, CULTURE as well as a way to hide the body from scavengers. This may also imply concern about death, about what lies Both in spatial and temporal terms, the Mousterian culture beyond death, and the meaning of existence. The argument coincides with Neandertals. This identification between the for religiousness is convincing when burial is accompanied Mousterian culture and Homo neanderthalensis has been by some sort of ritual. considered so consistent that, repeatedly, European sites Neandertal burials have been located in four areas: yielding no human specimens, or with scarce and frag- Southern France, Northern Balkan, the Near East (Israel mented remains, were attributed to Neandertals on the sole and Syria), and Central Asia (Iraq, Caucasus, and Uzbe- basis of the presence of Mousterian utensils. Despite the kistan). In most cases these burials seem to be deliberate. 742 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

Hence, the “old man” from La-Chapelle aux Saints deformation that was attributed to aesthetic or cultural appeared in a rectangular hole dug in the ground of a motives. However, Chris Stringer and Eric Trinkaus (1981) cave that could not be attributed to natural processes indicated that the specimens had been reconstructed (Bouyssonie et al., 1908). In regard to La Ferrassie and incorrectly and that the shape of the first one was due to Shanidar, the possible evidence of the existence of tombs pathological circumstances. In his study of the Shanidar IV led Michael Day (1986) to remark, in a technical and burial, Ralph Solecki (975) argued that there is no evidence unspeculative treatise, that these exemplify the first inten- of an intentional deposit of flowers at the burial. The pollen tional Neandertal burial that has been reliably determined. must have been deposited there in a natural way by the Eric Trinkaus’ (1983) taphonomic considerations point in wind. Supporting the notion of an unintentional presence, the same direction. The abundance and excellent state of Robert Gargett (1989) suggested that the pollen could have Neandertal remains at those sites, together with the pres- been introduced simply by the boots of the workers at the ence of infantile remains, are proof that the bodies were out cave’s excavation. Paul Mellars (1996) believes that the of the reach of scavengers. Given that there is no way accidental presence of objects at French burial sites, such as natural forces could produce those burials, Trinkaus be- La Ferrassie or Le Moustier, is inevitable: the tombs were lieves the most reasonable option is to accept that the re- opened at places in which faunal remains and Mousterian mains were intentionally deposited in tombs. However, utensils were abundant. William Noble and Ian Davidson (1996) argued that, at The Teshik-Tash site (Uzbekistan), located on high and least in the case of Shanidar (Iraq), it is probable that the precipitous terrain, contains an infantile burial associated cave’s ceiling collapsed while its inhabitants were sleeping. with wild goat crania. According to Hallam Movius (1953), Some of the aforementioned remains are not only buried the horns formed a circle around the tomb. This would intentionally, but they are accompanied by evidence of support a symbolic purpose and a ritual content associated rituals. This is the case of the Kebara skeleton (Israel), with the burial. Currently, however, even those who favor which, despite being excellently preserveddit even in- Neandertals as individuals with remarkable cognitive ca- cludes the hyoid bonedis lacking the cranium. Everything pacities are quite skeptical about the presumed intentional suggests that the absence of the cranium is due to deliberate arrangement of the crania (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1993; action carried out many months after the individual died Akazawa et al., 1995; Mellars, 1996). (Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, 1993). It is difficult to Neandertal burials can be interpreted as a functional imagine a different taphonomic explanation. Bar-Yosef and response to the need of disposing of the bodies, even if only Vandermeersch (1993) wondered about the reasons for for hygienic reasons. But they could also be understood as such an action, suggesting that the answer might lie in a the reflection of transcendent thinking, beyond the simple religious ritual. human motivation of preserving the bodies of deceased A Neandertal tomb with an infantile specimen was loved ones. According to Mellars (1996), “we must assume found in the Dederiyeh cave (Syria), 400 -km north of that the act of deliberate burial implies the existence of Damascus. Takeru Akazawa et al. (1995) interpreted the some kind of strong social or emotional bonds within burial as an indication of the existence of a ritual. The Neandertal societies.” However, Mellars believes that there reason behind this argument is the posture in which the is no evidence of rituals or other symbolic elements in those specimen was deposited in the tomb. The excellently pre- tombs. The appearance of such evidence would demon- served skeleton was found with extended arms and flexed strate that Neandertals were capable of religious thinking. legs. Mousterian lithic industry also turned up in the cave, Similarly, Gargett (1989) argued that the evidence of which Akazawa et al. (1995) associated with that from Neandertal burials is much more solid than the evidence of Kebara and Tabun B, though there were few tools at the offering or rituals. Julien Riel-Salvatore and Geoffrey A. burial level. An almost rectangular limestone rock was Clark (2001) have noted that applying Gargett’s criterion to placed on the skeleton’s cranium, and a small triangular the Early Upper Paleolithic would also lead to doubting the piece of flint appeared where the heart had once been. intentionality of the first modern human burials. They Although Akazawa et al. (1995) did not elaborate an believe that there is a continuity, regarding the tombs, be- interpretation of these findings, they implicitly suggest that tween the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic archaeo- these objects had ritual significance. logical records. True differences do not appear until the The Shanidar IV specimen is one of the most frequent Late phase of the Upper Paleolithic (20e10 ka). references in relation to ritual behaviors. The discovery of However, Neandertal burials contrast sharply with the substantial amounts of pollen at the tomb was interpreted as burials made by modern humans, living approximately at evidence of an intentional floral offering (Leroi-Gourhan, the same time. The differences are especially illustrative in 1975). If this were the case, it would represent the begin- the Near East. The only intentional, and potentially sym- ning of a custom that lasts today. It must not be forgotten bolic, funerary Middle Paleolithic objects are the bovid either that two of the Shanidar crania, I and V, show a and pig remains found in burials at Qafzeh and Skuhl Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 743

(Mellars, 1996). Both appeared in modern human sites. and Upper Paleolithic was always taken from the Western Taking into account that humans and Neandertals living at Europe archaeological record. During the last glacial those sites shared the same Mousterian tradition, this is a period, the human occupation of that area was irregular, as significant difference. It not only has to do with the F. Clark Howell (1952) pointed out, with populations manufacture of objects, but with much more subtle aspects, periodically reduced, or even extinguished. McBrearty and which are associated with mental processes like symbolism, Brooks (2000) argued that the “revolutionary” nature of the aesthetics, or religious beliefs. European Upper Paleolithic is mainly due to the disconti- William Noble and Ian Davidson (1996) stressed that nuity in the archaeological record, rather than to cultural, Neandertal burials have not been found outside caves. In cognitive, and biological transformations, as suggested by contrast, there are examples of very early human tombs in advocates of the “human revolution.” Instead, McBrearty open terrains at places such as Lake Mungo (Australia), and Brooks (2000) hold that there was a long process that Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic) and Sungir (Russia). In gradually led to the European Aurignacian richness. Noble and Davidson’s (1996) view, the appearance of a Was the transition to the European Aurignacian gradual Neandertal tomb outside the caves would be the best proof or sudden? To analyze the process of change from Mode 4 that this is an intentional burial. For now, known tombs to Mode 5, which is the same as specifying the time and provide no conclusive clues about Neandertal self- mode of the emergence of the modern mind, we need to awareness, not to speak of their religion. clarify a number of interrelated processes: THE TRANSITION MODE 3 l the appearance of H. sapiens l its dispersal from the place of origin (MOUSTERIAN) TO MODE 4 l cultural development leading to the industries of the Eu- (AURIGNACIAN) ropean Upper Paleolithic The Mode 3, ie, the Mousterian culture characteristic of The first step to clarify the origin of the modern mind the Neandertals in Europe and Near East Asia during raises the issue of identification of the oldest members of the Middle Paleolithic, ranged from about 100 to 40 ka. our species. The name Cro-Magnon corresponds to fossils Around these dates more developed technocomplexes discovered in 1868 near Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne), of c. appeared in Europe. Industries called “transitional,” to 30 ka of age, obtained by comparison with 14C date of the contrast them with the “real” Mode 4, a set of cultural Aurignacian levels of the Pataud rock shelter (Dordogne) traditions of the Upper Paleolithic, coincided with the entry (Henry-Gambier, 2002), but applied in general to the first of the first modern humans, the Cro-Magnon, into Europe modern humans which entered Europe. The first entry between 40 and 28 ka. Traditions of the Upper Paleolithic could have been around z45 ka (Paul Mellars, 2005) (we include not only tools that are more precise and sophisti- will come back later to this issue). However, the age of cated than those from the earlier Mousterian culture but H. sapiens would be considerably older. The numbers ob- also abundant representations of real objects in the form of tained by molecular methods have a remarkably broad engravings, paintings, and sculptures, realistic representa- range: 290e140 ka (Cann et al., 1987); 249e166 ka tions that display significant differences in favor of the (Vigilant et al., 1991) obtained by coalescence of mtDNA. development of Mode 4. A good example is the large But, the paleontological record contains exemplars tenta- mammal paintings of the Chauvet cave, dated by radio- tively attributed to H. sapiens of much older age. The carbon calibration (14C) at c. 36 ka (von Petzinger and 640 ka old specimens from Bodo (Clark et al., 1994), if the Nowell, 2014). Such a realistic intensity of the poly- “Bodo man” is thought to be a modern human, would make chromes of the Upper Paleolithic have led to the argument the origin of H. sapiens much older. The origin of our that modern humans achieved an artistic revolution species would go even further back if the Danakil spec- explainable only by a corresponding cognitive revolution imen, with almost a million years of age (Abbate et al., attaining what we call the “modern mind.” Does this 1998), is included. All these fossils, besides their dubious cognitive revolution appear suddenly and exclusively in our ascription, are of a very different age than that indicated by species? molecular methods. As McBrearty and Brooks (2000) pointed out, the If we merely consider those specimens whose attribu- proposal of a cognitive revolution repeats a scenario tion to our species is most likely, various cranial materials introduced in the 19th century with the Age of the Reindeer from Aduma region (Middle Awash) should be mentioned, (Lartet and Christy, 1865e1875). Around the 1920s the including the partial skull ADU-VP-1/3. Found on the Upper Paleolithic was generally characterized by the pres- surface, their age was attributed by morphological com- ence of sculptures, paintings, and bone utensils. But ac- parisons. When Yohannes Haile-Selassie et al. introduced cording to McBrearty and Brooks (2000), the evidence them, they claimed that these crania “are similar in pre- used to determine the changes between the Lower, Middle, served parts to specimens from the Middle East, and from 744 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

northern and eastern Africa, between 100 and 300 ka. THE AFRICAN MIDDLE STONE AGE Specifically, the most complete Aduma cranium is most similar to crania thought to belong to the younger part of The traditional consideration of the African archaeological fl that range. This Middle Stone Age cranium, in most of its record was in uenced by the scheme used to create the characters, is indistinguishable from other anatomically European sequence of Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleo- modern human crania” (Haile-Selassie et al., 2004). From lithic stages. The cultural phases of Africa were conso- the same formation, found on the surface, is the parietal nantly grouped into Early, Middle, and Late Stone Age BOU-VP-5/1, also attributed to H. sapiens (Haile-Selassie (ESA, MSA, and LSA, respectively). ESA encompasses et al., 2004). In the Herto Member of the Bouri formation not only Mode 1 but also Mode 2, so that the difference appear fossils, such as the cranium BOU-VP-16/1 (White between the cultural level of ESA and MSA comes from et al., 2003), which were classified as H. sapiens by Tim innovations that go beyond the tools of the Acheulean White et al. The age of Herto specimens, obtained by culture. If ESA is linked especially with large bifaces (LFA 40Ar/39Ar method, is of 160e154 ka (Clark et al., 2003). hand axes), the MSA has been traditionally characterized From Singa (Sudan) came a calvarium found in 1924 and by the absence of large bifaces, an emphasis on Levallois ascribed to H. sapiens (Rightmire, 1984) whose dating by technology, and the presence of points (Goodwin and Van mass-spectrometric U-Th is of 133 2ka (McDermott Riet Lowe, 1929). et al., 1996). Günther Bräuer et al. (1997) proposed that the Both East Africa as well as South Africa contain evi- oldest modern humans evidences would be a cranium dence of an ancient presence of MSA technocomplexes. In fi (KNM-ER 3884) and a femur (KNM-ER 999) from Koobi addition to the ndings on the surface, whose age is Fora (Kenya), dated by uranium series, respectively, at 270 imprecise, about 60 sites in East Africa susceptible to and 300 ka. Nevertheless, the most interesting fossils are dating which contain MSA utensils (Basell, 2008)have the South African. been described. According to the review by Laura Basell < Along with its role in documenting cultural (2008), their ages range from 200 ka to about 40 ka. evolutiondwhich we will see soondSouth Africa has The beginning of MSA could be even much older. Jayne also provided evidence on the origin and dispersals of the Wilkins (2013) indicated that there are MSA utensils at first H. sapiens. Various sites from the most southerly part Kathu Pan 1 site (Northern Cape, South Africa) of an age of z of South Africa, near Cape Town, such as Border cave (de up to 500 ka. Villiers, 1973), Klasies River Mouth (Singer and Wymer, In principle, ESA and MSA could be distinguished 1982), Equus cave (Grine and Klein, 1985), Die Kelders simply by the presence of hand axes or points. But, as fi cave, Blombos cave (Henshilwood et al., 2001), Sibudu clari ed by Sally McBrearty and Christian Tryon (2006), (Backwell et al., 2008), Hofmeyr (Grine et al., 2007)and the sites normally lack tools capable of leading to a formal fi “ Hoedjiespunt (Berger and Parkington, 1995), among classi cation. The problem is that formal tools are vastly fl others, have provided the most important samples of the outnumbered at nearly all sites by akes, cores, and expe- fl emergence of modern humans. The fossils from these dient tools, and the basic ake and core artifact inventories sites are normally of lesser significance and of dubious [of the Acheulean and MSA], are in many cases indistin- ” dating. But the importance of the association between guishable (McBrearty and Tryon, 2006). In the absence of fossil specimens and archaeological remains in South reliable dating, we face the fact that the method of direct Africa lies in the fact that the Khoe-San hunter-gatherers, percussion is not an accurate chronological marker. How- “ the oldest living identified ethnicity, are found there. ever, MSA can also be associated with blade and micro- Their separation from the rest of human populations lithic technology, bone tools, increased geographic range, occurred at least 100,000 years ago (Schlebusch et al., specialized hunting, the use of aquatic resources, long 2012); thus, the age of our species should be older distance trade, systematic processing and use of pigment, ” than that. and art and decoration (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). The evidence of an earlier division of H. sapiens pop- And among the innovations related to hunting are pro- ulations reveals that the transit from Mode 3 to Mode 4 cedures and resources that were attributed initially to Mode could not be deduced by comparison between the techno- 4 of European Cro-Magnon, as is the use of hafting adhe- fi logical level of Neandertals and Cro-Magnon in the range sives, identi ed in the South African MSA (Charrié-Duhaut of z40 ka. It must be found in the cultural development of et al., 2013). H. sapiens in Africa, which took place at a time Considering the novelty of compound-adhesive manu- fi (100e200 ka) when the appearance and early evolution of facture, the age of the emergence of the oldest MSA is xed z our species occurred. A review of African cultural evolu- at 300 ka (Henshilwood and Dubreuil, 2012; Wadley, tion of that period reveals the meaning of the proposed 2010). Dates of that range are similar to those of the lower model of gradual change by McBrearty and Brooks (2000) horizon of Gademotta formation (Ethiopia), 276 4ka to which we referred earlier. (Morgan and Renne, 2008) and the Bedded Tuff Member Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 745

of Kapthurin formation (Kenya), 284 24 ka (Deino and Diepkloof Rock Shelter shows a similar succession. It is McBrearty, 2002), obtained both by 40Ar/39Ar. However, located on the west coast of South Africa (Western Cape as argued by Robert Foley et al. (2013) “The majority of Province), 14 km from the Atlantic at the Table Mountain MSA sites postdate 130 Ka, and it is from the beginning of Group, very close to various sites with MSA industry. The MIS5 (z130e74 Ka) and during MIS4 (74e60 Ka) that excavation completed up to 2013 reveals the following the classic African MSA becomes widespread and sequence: MSA (type “Mike”); Pre-SB-SB-Early HP-MSA abundant.” (type “Jack”); Interm. HP-Late HP-Post-HP (Porraz et al., South African sites have allowed the study in greater 2013b). The change from SB-HP in Diepkloof is abrupt and detail of the development of MSA, especially in its final that rapid shift has been interpreted in three ways: a pop- stages, and the transition to LSA. ulation replacement, a discontinuity in the archaeological There are several concurrent processes at the temporal record, and/or a fast innovation, with a new way of hafting range of 80e60 ka: the expansion of modern human (and using) tools (Igreja and Porraz, 2013). However, populations, their exit from Africa, and the emergence of Porraz et al. (2013b) disagree with the hypothesis con- technological and symbolic innovations associated with necting the appearance of the SB and the HP to the arrival the modern mind. Naturally, the possibility of specifying of new populations. Instead, the authors support a scenario dates, in particular for new tools, becomes the key to relate based on local evolution with distinct technological tradi- all those events. The final stages of cultural evolution tions that coexisted in South Africa during MIS 5. As within the MSA correspond in South Africa to the tradi- argued by Porraz et al. (2013a), during MIS 5 there was tions of Still Bay (SB) and Howiesons Poort (HP), wide- “the coexistence of multiple, distinct technological tradi- spread in the southern cone of Africa. The study of tions. We argue that the formation of regional identities in Zenobia Jacobs et al. (2008) characterizes SB as flake- southern Africa would have favored and increased cultural based technology, which includes finely shaped, bifa- interactions between groups at a local scale, providing a cially worked, lanceolate points that were probably parts favorable context for the development and diffusion of of spearheads. On the other hand, HP is described as innovations . The southern African data suggest that the “blade-rich . associated with backed (blunted) tools that history of modern humans has been characterized by mul- most likely served as composite weapons, made of multiple and independent evolutionary trajectories and that tiple stone artifacts.” However, both traditions share different paths and scenarios existed toward the adoption of “associated bone points and tools, engraved ochres and ‘modern’ hunter-gatherer lifestyles.” Within that indepen- ostrich eggshells, and shell beads.” Four South African dent evolution SB and HP traditions appear and disappear sites are particularly useful to detail the scope of SB and at the sites in very short periods. But on the whole these HP phases: Diepkloof, Sibudu, Blombos, and Klasies technocomplexes “are neither of short duration in time, nor River. The first two because they have tools of both tra- homogeneous across space” (Porraz et al., 2013b). Conse- ditions. Blombos, because the abundance of engravings, quently, for Porraz et al. (2013b), the traditions SB and HP pigments, and perforated beads. Klasies River, because the cannot be considered as horizon markers. fossil remains led to clarification of which hominins were responsible for the transition from MSA to LSA. This is THE PROTAGONISTS OF THE SOUTH something of special interest because both SB and HP AFRICAN MSA already show different innovations which previously were associated only with the most advanced culture of the Jayne Wilkins (2013) pointed out the general character- Upper Paleolithic. istics of the human evolution related to the development of Sibudu cave, located in KwaZulu-Natal North coasts, MSA in South Africa. For this author the earlier MSA is near Durban (South Africa), include a remarkable sequence “generally attributed to a group of hominins that are var- of MSA occupations extending over a short timeframe. The iably described as late archaic H. sapiens,orH. helmei first MSA tools which appeared in the Marine Isotope Stage [meanwhile] by w195e150 ka, anatomically modern (MIS) 4, ie, are older than z61 ka. From that point, phases human fossils are known from East Africa . and modern follow one after another: pre-SB, SB, HP, post-HP, and late H. sapiens are responsible for the later MSA” (Wilkins, and final MSA phases directly overlain by Iron Age 2013). occupation (Backwell et al., 2008). The final phases, post- In a review article that overviews how the South Afri- HP, of Sibudu have been studied by Manuel Will et al. can Pleistocene Homo fossil record correlates with the (2014), attributing to MIS 3 around 58 ka. This prolifera- Stone Age sequence, Gerrit Dusseldorp et al. (2013) have tion of different traditions over a short period may have argued about the basic problem to establish the correlation been related to both climate change as well as the ten- between fossils and tools: few South African hominin dencies of hunter-gatherers in regard to their use of local fossils can be placed between z200 ka and 110 ka, resources. ie, during the probable dates of transformation from 746 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

Mid-Pleistocene Homo to modern H. sapiens in the region. modern human range. But the peculiarity of Blombos is With an age ranging between z110 and 40 ka, specimens linked to the presence of ocher pieces. appeared at Klasies River, such as jaws KRM 41,815 and The presence of red ocherdhematite (iron oxide)dis 16,424 and the cranial fragments KRM 27,070 attributed to very common in all South African sites of the Late MSA, H. sapiens. From Border cave site came the jaw BC 5, with and stones with signs of use have striations which are an accurate dating of 74 5 ka, obtained by electronic spin attributed widely to the acquirement of powder for pigment resonance from a tooth fragment (Grün et al., 2003). In making. In the absence of polychrome on the walls of such a manner, 74,000 years would be the minimum age for caves, it is possible to infer that the use of the pigment is the presence of H. sapiens in South Africa (a complete list related to other symbolic behavior. As argued by Christo- of Early, Middle Pleistocene, and Modern Homo of South pher Henshilwood et al. (2001), one intuitive conclusion, Africa is given in Dusseldorp et al., 2013, Supplementary shared by most archaeologists, is that MSA ocher was used material). The set of South African fossils, associated with for body-paint/cosmetic and possibly the decoration of MSA technocomplexes mainly belong to MIS 5 and MIS 4, organic artifacts. But, in the absence of empirical evidence, and can be called “transitional.” Its morphology is modern, that hypothesis is entirely speculative. Blombos’ value lies but the process of gracilization, leading to the form and in the contribution of evidence linking ocher and dimensions of contemporary populations, was not yet symbolism. completed (Dusseldorp et al., 2013). As Dusseldorp et al. Blombos cave is located near the Indian Ocean, 25 -km (2013) said: “On the whole, the fossil record from this west of SB town and 300 -km east of Cape Town. The site period suggests that South Africa was occupied by pop- is located 100 m from the coast and at an elevation of ulations showing a wide range of anatomical variation.” 34.5 m above sea level. In Blombos MSA levels more than Between the end of MSA and the beginning of LSA, 8000 pieces of ocher have been found, many with signs of two complete fossils of modern morphology are available use (Henshilwood et al., 2002), among which the most in South Africa: the Hofmeyr skull and the jaw of Bushman outstanding are the geometric engravings, present in the Rock Shelter. Both specimens are attributed to MIS 3, with three sedimentary phases of Blombos, thus, over nearly an age for the child’s jaw of Bushman Rock Shelterd 100 ka (Henshilwood et al., 2009). As Henshilwood et al. assigned tentatively to site levels 16 or 17dof z29.5 ka (2009) pointed out, “The fact that they were created, that (Protsch and de Villiers, 1974). The Hofmeyr skull has most of them are deliberate and were made with repre- been dated at 36.2 3.3 ka by thermoluminescence and sentational intent, strongly suggests they functioned as ar- uranium series. The phenetic affinities of the Hofmeyr skull tefacts within a society where behavior was mediated by were studied by Frederick Grine et al. (2007) using a symbols.” In other words, we find an empirical example of multivariant analysis of linear measurements, as well as the the “new mind.” Blombos documents undoubtedly the coordinates of 19 three-dimensional points in comparison presence of Mode 4. with those of modern humans from North Africa (Meso- lithic), sub-Saharan Africa, West Eurasia, Oceania, and THE WAY OUT OF AFRICA FOR HOMO East Asia/New World, along with two Neandertals, four SAPIENS Upper Paleolithic modern humans, and one modern human from the Levant, also of Upper Paleolithic. The result of the The process leading to modern humans, from their emer- analysis indicates that the anatomy of the Hofmeyr skull is gence and development of Mode 4 in Africa, to their entry closer to that of modern human populations from Eurasia of into Europe, and to the “artistic explosion” that appears in the Upper Pleistocene than to the current Khoe-San (Grine the caves of Southern France and Northern Spain, is et al., 2007). This result supports, according to Grine et al. controversial. To clarify the ancestral genetic blueprint of (2007), the hypothesis that early modern humans, which current humans, Toomas Kivisild et al. (2006) conducted migrated to Eurasia, came from South Africa. an analysis of the whole mtDNA of 277 individuals from This anatomical connection, the presence of an five African haplogroups, L0 to L5. The most parsimonious advanced technology of tool making and the evidence of cladogram obtained shows that the L0d, corresponding to the emergence of what could be called modern behavior, in Khoe-San people, is the ancestral subhaplogroup with cognitive terms which go beyond the technological level, respect to the rest of Africans. Recent analysis of single make South Africa a site of great value to understand the nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the nuclear DNA, last steps of human evolution. In this respect Blombos site supported the sub-Saharan origin of modern humans becomes important. Its human remains provide only a little (Jakobsson et al., 2008; Li et al., 2008). The details of information; during 1997e1998 campaigns, four teeth were Khoe-San genetic variation have been offered by Carina found in Blombos cave, two of them deciduous teeth, some Schlebusch et al. (2012) by genotyping z2.3 million SNPs of which, with respect to the crown diameter, belong to the in 220 South Africans. The results of the study indicated Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 747

that the divergence between the Khoe-San and other The technological level of Aurignacian contrasts with the modern African humans took place more than Mousterian Mode 3 of Neandertals. The most obvious 100,000 years agodthat is to say, near the very beginning difference is the use of microbladelet technology, repre- of the emergence of H. sapiensdalthough the genetic senting a major difference from the most advanced tools up distribution of the modern day Khoe-San goes back only to that time. If Châtelperronian points, as well as bladelets, about 35,000 years. fulfill the same purpose, to serve as projectiles, the Auri- Paul Mellars (2006b) has proposed a model for the gnacian microliths are “serially, laterally hafted along origin and dispersal of modern humans, which could be the shaft of projectiles, not mounted at their extremities” summarized in the following events: (Bon, 2006). The need to compare the technocomplexes of Mode 3 l genetic evidence: and Aurignacian led to distinguish the latter as belonging to l MIS 5 (130e80 ka) a homogeneous tradition, following the initial descriptions - Presence of H. sapiens in the Near East such as those by Abbe Breuil (1913). However, techno- - Evolutionary changes in South Africa logical analysis determined the presence of different forms l MIS 4 (71e60) of tool production in the Aurignacian. For the initial carv- - Expansion to Africa ings, in contrast with Mode 3, several different names were - Dispersal to Eurasia proposedd“Classic Aurignacian,”“Aurignacian I,”“Proto- l Archaeological evidence Aurignacian,”“Early Aurignacian,”“Pre-Aurignacian,” l MIS 5 “Archaic Aurignacian,”“Initial Aurignacian”dand applied - Emergence of the “modern mind” in South Africa to techniques that in some instances are quite similar. Some - Dispersal to North Africa and the Near East authors have even suggested that between the initial carv- l MIS 4 ings of Mode 4 and the most advanced Aurignacian - Dispersal of the “modern mind” into Eurasia there are very few differences (Nejman, 2008). However, A key element of this model is formed by the episode of François Bon (2006) has argued that, from a technological z65 ka ago, with a coastal dispersal of H. sapiens pop- point of view, two different systems can be distinguished, ulations which took advantage of high-productivity areas of which the author called “Archaic (or Proto) Aurignacian” resources to expand into Asia until they reached the Wal- and “Early Aurignacian.” The difference consists in that lacea and Sahul regions (Mellars et al., 2013). As Jane only one chaîne opératoire is required to obtain Archaic Balme et al. (2009) indicated, the occupation of diverse Aurignacian tools, meanwhile two distinct chaînes opér- ecosystems with hostile environments and depressed fauna, atoires are required to obtain blades and bladelets of the could only have occurred with the use of complex systems Early Aurignacian (Bon, 2006). As William Banks et al. of exchange and communication, including language. (2013) stated, “For the Proto-Aurignacian, blades and bla- Although it is difficult to verify this hypothesis, what these delets were produced from unidirectional prismatic cores authors argue is equivalent to an acceptance that Southeast within a single, continuous reduction sequence . During Asian settlers in that time range possessed the modern the Early Aurignacian, blades and bladelets were produced mind. via two distinct core reduction strategies. Blades continued Cultural evolution in Asia associates H. sapiens as the to be produced from prismatic cores, were robust, and were only species to which the cognitive traits of the modern typically heavily retouched on their lateral edges. Carinated mind can be attributed; however, the European case is ‘scrapers’ served as specialized cores whose reduction different. If the southern and coastal dispersals of modern yielded short, straight, or curved bladelets that were typi- humans into Asia took place c. 65e60 ka ago, the dispersal cally left unretouched. The Early Aurignacian is also char- permitting the occupation of Europe by the Cro-Magnon is acterized by the appearance of split-based bone points.” later: 47e41 ka, according to data calibrated by radio- (Banks et al., 2013). carbon (Mellars, 2006a). Cultural traditions commonly The oldest documented presence of Archaic or Proto- attributed to modern humans entering Europe are, cited in Aurignacian is found before the cold Heinrich Event 4 order of antiquity, the industries Aurignacian, Gravettian, (HE4) (z40 ka) in Northern Spain (El Castillo, Cantabria, Solutrean, and Magdalenian. level 18, 41e38 ka; l’Arbreda, Catalonia, level 11, The Aurignacian culture was defined by Edouard Lartet 41e39 ka) and Northern Italy (Paina 38.6e37.9; Fumane (1860) in accordance with the tools found at the site of 36.8e32.1) (Kozlowski and Otte, 2000), Southern France Aurignac (French Pyrenees), but is also assigned to similar (Isturitz 37.18 4.2 ka (Szmidt et al., 2010)), and Moravia industry sets from large parts of Eastern, Western, and (Brno-Bohunice, z48 ka (Hoffecker, 2009)). The oldest Central Europe, and also to some of the existing tech- evidence of the Early Aurignacian would be of almost nocomplexes in parts of the Middle East (Mellars, 2006a). 34 ka in France (Castanet Lower, Combe Saunière VIII, 748 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

Flageolet I XI, Pataud 11 and 13, Roc de Combe 7c, Tuto associated with almost every transitional technocomplex de Camalhot 70e8) and Germany (Geissenklösterle IIIa, generally prevents the association of hominin/industry, and Wildscheuer III) (Banks et al., 2013). The lowest strata of of confirming who were the architects of this cultural Hohle Fels cave, which ranged between 36 and 33 ka, change. However, two sites with Châtelperronian culture, contains ivory sculptures in addition to facies of Early Saint-Césaire (c. 36 ka) (Lévêque and Vandermeersch, Aurignacian (Conard, 2003). Banks et al. (2013, 1980; Mercier et al., 1991) and Arcy-sur-Cure (c. 34 ka) Table 44.2) give radiocarbon calibrated dates associated (Hublin et al., 1996), contain in the same stratigraphic level with the Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian in fossils of H. neanderthalensis (questioned by Bar-Yosef Europe. and Bordes, 2010; Higham et al., 2010). This coincidence The biggest obstacle to give meaning to the Archaic and has been at times enough to attribute all transitional in- Early Aurignacian cultures is the absence of associated dustries to Neandertals (Allsworth-Jones, 1986; Mellars, fossils. Therefore, as stated by Joao Zilhao (2006), these 1996; Stringer and Gamble, 1993); a consideration sus- industries can be attributed to both Neandertals and modern tained in some revisions of specialists (Churchill and humans. We have, then, a problem for the identification of Smith, 2000; Francesco d’Errico, 2003). the “modern mind.” If we associate it to the technological The general assignment of transitional industries to the level of cultures immediately preceding the advanced Neandertals encounters the problem of the morphology of Aurignacian, Neandertals could also have had that cogni- fossil specimens found at Uluzzian levels. In the Grotta di tive capacity. But, if we relate the modern mind with Fumane (Lessini Mountains, North Italy) several human realistic representations of figurative cave art, these only teeth have been found: Fumane, 1, 4, 5, deciduous; Fumane appear at the end of the Aurignacian. Early modern humans 6, adult. Stefano Benazzi et al. (2014) classified Fumane 1 would then have lacked such a capacity. as clearly Neandertal, and Fumane 5 as supporting Nean- dertal affinity. Both specimens come from the Mousterian TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIES levels of Fumane. At the same time, Fumane 6, of the Uluzzian levels, does not show morphological features The meaning of the emergence of the modern mind in both useful for taxonomic discrimination (Benazzi et al., 2014). technological and symbolic terms becomes clearer by Fumane fossil specimens, therefore, do not contradict the analyzing the transitional industries. According to Ivor general attribution of Uluzzian to Neandertals. However, a Jankovic et al. (2006), these “include the Châtelperronian new analysis by Stefano Benazzi et al. (2011) of two de- of France and northern Spain, Szeletian and Jankovichian ciduous molars from the Uluzzian levels (EIII) of the Grotta of central and parts of eastern Europe, Uluzzian of Italy del Cavallo (Apulia, Southern Italy), one initially classified (Tuscany, Calabria, southern Adriatic part, Uluzzo Bay, as a Neandertal, leads to different conclusions. By means of etc.), Streletskian of eastern Europe, Jerzmanowician of morphometric methods based on microtomographic data, eastern Germany and Poland, Althmulian of southern Benazzi et al. (2011) stated that the Cavallo specimens can Germany, Bohunician of Czech Republic, Brynzeny and be attributed to modern humans. In addition, in the EIII Kostenki Szeletian of Russia and several other unnamed or level of the Grotta del Cavallo appeared several marine site-specific assemblages from Poland, Slovakia, Czech shells (Dentalium sp., Nuculana sp., and Cyclope neritea) Republic, Romania, etc.” They are called “transitional” snapped or pierced to be transformed into beads. because they contain elements of the Middle Paleolithic If the Uluzzian technocomplex, very ancient, is the (Mousterian, Micoquian), absent in the Early Aurignacian, production of modern humans, we find ourselves with the such as curved-backed points and foliate points (Kozlowski possibility to establish plausible dates for the entry into and Otte, 2000), but also tools that are considered charac- Europe of H. sapiens. The Grotta di Fumane (Lessini teristic of the Upper Paleolithic, such as carinated scrapers Mountains, North Italy) contains levels of the late Mous- or bone points. David Brose and Milford Wolpoff (1971, terian (A11, A5), Uluzzian (A4, A3), and Proto- Table 44.1) provide a long list of Upper Paleolithic utensils Aurignacian (A2, A1 up to D3) technocomplex (Benazzi found in Middle Paleolithic contexts. et al., 2014). Fumane Mousterian levels were dated by The problem of the transitional industries appears when calibrated radiocarbon between 45.4 and 41.7 (A11) and we need to assign them to a species. As was indicated by 38.875 1.497 ka (A5), while the Uluzzian level (A4) Jankovic et al. (2011), “even if we accept the earliest received 37.8e36.9 ka (Peresani et al., 2008). Applying a Aurignacian as an industrial complex that has its origins development of radiocarbon dating (acid-base-oxidation- outside this area . (which is far from proven) and attribute stepped combustiondABOx-SCdand acid-base-acidd it to anatomically modern newcomers (for which there are ABAdpretreatments for removing contaminants, then no known hominin/ industrial associations) we are left with accelerator mass spectrometrydAMS), Thomas Higham the problem of who is responsible for these Initial Upper et al. (2009) increased the age of the fossils of Cavallo. Paleolithic assemblages.” The absence of fossil remains The age of the Proto-Aurignacian A2 level would be Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 749

41.20e40.45 ka, ie, prior to the Campanian Ignimbrite Neandertals a sophisticated and modern symbolic eruption. The latest Mousterian occupation (A5) would be behavior. 43.58e42.98 ka, and the Uluzzian levels should be found Randall White (2001) has offered an alternative inter- between that date and 41.20e40.45 ka. The analysis by pretation of the decorative objects from the Grotte du Katerina Douka et al. (2014) pushed back even further the Renne: “It seems implausible that . Neandertals and Cro- age of the Uluzzian. By an integrated synthesis of new Magnons independently and simultaneously invented per- radiocarbon results and a Bayesian statistical approach sonal ornaments manufactured from the same raw materials from four stratified Uluzzian cave sequences in Italy and and using precisely the same techniques.” Consequently, he Greece (Cavallo, Fumane, Castelcivita, and Klissoura 1), argues that the Châtelperronian ornaments from the Grotte Douka et al. (2014) concluded that the Uluzzian arrived in du Renne are Aurignacian and were produced by modern Italy and Greece shortly before 45 ka. Its final stages are humans. The question whether the authors of the Châ- z39.5 ka, coinciding with the Campanian Ignimbrite telperronian culture were Neandertals, modern humans, or eruption. Fumane dates agree with that of the Grotta del both, has sparked numerous discussions. The evidence Cavallo. Benazzi et al. (2011) dated the Cavallo shells by from Saint-Césaire (France), with both Middle and Upper AMS radiocarbon at an age of 45.01e43.38 ka. Paleolithic strata, allowed in situ studies of the association The latest scenario presents, therefore, the arrival of of specimens and tools, as well as the cultural transition Uluzzian technocomplexesdie, of modern humansdin (Mercier et al., 1991). Norbert Mercier et al. (1991) used Italy and Greece, with the modern mind necessary to use thermoluminescence to estimate the age of the Neandertal personal ornaments (beads), shortly before 45 ka, a date specimens found in levels with Châtelperronian industry. old enough to match the Châtelperronian levels of Nean- Their results suggest they were 36,300 2700 years old. dertals in France and northern Spain. Additionally, beads Mercier et al. (1991) argued that there was contact between and ocher pigments also appear at the Châtelperronian Neandertals from Western Europe and the first modern sites. The Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure (France), a site humans that arrived there. They also noted something we inhabited by Neandertals (Hublin et al., 1996), in addition have said on several occasions: the straightforward identi- to Châtelperronian tools constructed in situ has yielded a fication of cultures with taxa is not possible. series of up to 36 objects such as carved ivory pieces and Arcy-sur-Cure suggests Neandertals were possibly perforated bones, the sole purpose of which must have capable of producing decorative objects; other sites provide been decorative. In addition to Châtelperronian tools evidences of cultural sharing. Ivor Karavanic and Fred constructed in situ, the Grotte du Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure, Smith (1998) documented the presence of two contempo- France) has yielded a series of up to 36 objects such as rary sites at Hrvatsko Zagorje (Croatia) which are close to carved ivory pieces and perforated bones, the sole purpose each other. The Vindija cave has yielded Neandertals, of which must have been decorative (Hublin et al., 1996). while Velika Pécina has only produced remains of Since 1949 Leroi-Gourhan carried out studies that anatomically modern humans. The authors believed that the revealed important differences between the engraving coincidences exhibited by the tools from both sites are due techniques used to produce the Arcy-sur-Cure Châ- to imitation or even commercial exchange. These Croatian telperronian artifacts and the latest Aurignacian utensils sites do not include ornaments, but they provide remarkable thatwerefoundinthemostmodernstrataofthesamecave indications of cultural exchange. This is corroborated (Leroi-Gourhan, 1958, 1961). Hence, the Châtelperronian beyond a doubt by H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens (Neandertal) and Aurignacian (modern human) cultures coincident at Palestine caves. Although the shared Near were different. But the decorative objects from the Grotte East Mousterian culture could be interpreted as the du Renne raised doubts about these differences existing maximum horizon Neandertals could reach, the Arcy-sur- between modern humans and Neandertals. Thus, Hublin Cure objects, assuming they were constructed or used by et al. (1996) interpreted the Arcy-sur-Cure artifacts as the Neandertals, suggest this was not the case. They seem to result of trading process rather than the result of technical support the notion that Neandertals appreciated pendants imitation of modern human technology. Francesco d’Er- enough to identify them as “beautiful objects.” At least in rico et al. (1998) arrived at a different conclusion: those this sense, they would have achieved the “modern mind.” objects were the result of an independent and character- The hypothesis that Neandertal decorative elements istically Neandertal cultural development, which had found in the Châtelperronian deposits are imitations of managedtocrossthethreshold of the symbolism inherent Aurignacian objects made by modern humans implies that in decorative objects. There is no reason to assume that the both cultures were contemporary or that the Aurignacian biological differences between Neandertals and modern culture was older. Joao Zilhão et al. (2006) have investi- humans necessarily translated into differences between gated the sequence of sediments and the archaeo- their intellectual capacities. Paul Bahn (1998) also logical association of the Grotte des Fées at Châtelperron believed the Arcy-sur-Cure objects merited attributing (France) and reject the Châtelperronian-Aurignacian 750 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

contemporaneity: They assert that “its stratification is poor Bar-Yosef, O., Bordes, J.-G., 2010. Who were the makers of the and unclear, the bone assemblage is carnivore accumulated, Châtelperronian culture? Journal of Human Evolution 59 (5), 586e593. the putative interstratified Aurignacian lens in level B4 is Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., 1993. Modern humans in the levant. fi e made up for the most part of Châtelperronian material, the Scienti c American 268 (4), 94 100. upper part of the sequence is entirely disturbed, and the few Basell, L.S., 2008. Middle Stone Age (MSA) site distributions in eastern Africa and their relationship to Quaternary environmental change, Aurignacian items in levels B4e5 represent isolated in- ” refugia and the evolution of Homo sapiens. Quaternary Science Re- trusions into otherwise in situ Châtelperronian deposits views 27 (27e28), 2484e2498. “ (Zilhão et al., 2006). Their conclusion is that as elsewhere Belmaker, M., Tchernov, E., Condemi, S., et al., 2002. New evidence for in southwestern Europe, this evidence confirms that hominid presence in the lower pleistocene of the southern levant. the Aurignacian postdates the Châtelperronian and that the Journal of Human Evolution 43 (1), 43e56. latter’s cultural innovations are better explained as the Benazzi, S., Bailey, S.E., Peresani, M., et al., 2014. Middle Paleolithic and Neandertals’ independent development of behavioral Uluzzian human remains from Fumane cave, Italy. Journal of Human modernity” (Zilhão et al., 2006). This hypothesis deserves Evolution 70, 61e68. attention, but to be accepted similar studies should be Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., et al., 2011. Early dispersal of modern carried out at places other than the Grotte des Fées. humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature e Any chronological table of the cultural sequences reveals 479 (7374), 525 528. Berger, L.R., Clarke, R.J., 1996. The Load of the Taung child. Nature 379, the difficulties we are encountering. Direct correspondences 778e779. are usually drawn between cultural manifestations and spe- Berger, L.R., Parkington, J.E., 1995. A new Pleistocene hominid-bearing cies, associating Mousterian with Neandertals and Auri- locality at Hoedjiespunt, South Africa. American Journal of Physical gnacian with modern humans. Hence, it seems clear that Anthropology 98, 601e609. attributing or not to Neandertals sufficient cognitive capac- Binford, L.R., 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic ities for aesthetic experience is heavily influenced by a given Press, New York. author’s point of view about the Mousterian evidence. Those Blumenschine, R., 1987. Characteristics of an early hominid scavenging who argue that Neandertals and H. sapiens belong to Niche. Current Anthropology 28, 383e408. different species tend to reject the presence of the “modern Boesch, C., Head, J., Robbins, M.M., 2009. Complex tool sets for honey mind” in the former’s contrivances, and vice versa. extraction among chimpanzees in Loango National Park, Gabon. Journal of Human Evolution 56, 560e569. Boesch, C., Tomasello, M., 1998. Chimpanzee and human cultures. Cur- REFERENCES rent Anthropology 39, 591e595. Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of Abbate, E., Albianelli, A., Azzaroli, A., et al., 1998. A one-million-year- the industries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleo- old Homo cranium from the Danakil (Afar) depression of Eritrea. lithic. In: Bar Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Nature 393, 458e460. Aurignacian. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Akazawa, T., Muhesen, M., Dodo, Y., et al., 1995. Neanderthal infant Português de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 133e144. burial. Nature 377, 585e586. Bordes, F., 1953. Nodules de typologie paléolithique I. Outils musteriens à Allsworth-Jones, P., 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to fracture volontaire, vol. 1. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Fran- Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford. çaise, Paris, p. 50. Ambrose, S.H., 2001. Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Bordes, F., 1979. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen, vol. 1. Science 291, 1748e1753. CNRS, Paris. Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., et al., 1992. The earliest Acheulan from Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., Bardon, L., 1908. Découverte d’un Konso-Gardula. Nature 360, 732e735. squelette humain mousterian à la bouffia de la Chapelle-aux-Saints Backwell, L., d’Errico, F., Wadley, L., 2008. Middle stone age bone tools (Corrèze). L’Anthropologie 19, 513e519. from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal Brain, C.K., 1958. The Transvaal ape-man bearing cave deposits. Trans- of Archaeological Science 35 (6), 1566e1580. vaal Museum Memoir 11, 1e125. Bahn, P.G., 1998. Neanderthals emancipated. Nature 394, 719e720. Brain, C.K., 1970. New finds at the Swartranks site. Nature 225, Balme, J., Davidson, I., McDonald, J., et al., 2009. Symbolic behaviour 1112e1119. and the peopling of the southern arc route to Australia. Quaternary Bräuer, G., Yokoyama, Y., Falguères, C., et al., 1997. Modern human International 202, 59e68. origins backdated. Nature 386, 337. Banks, W.E., d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., 2013. Human-climate interaction Breuil, H., 1913. Les subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur et leur during the early upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adap- signification. In: Paper presented at the Congrès International d’An- tive shift between the proto-Aurignacian and the early Aurignacian. thropologie et d’Archéologie préhistoriques. Compte-rendu de la Journal of Human Evolution 64 (1), 39e55. 14ème session, Genève 1912, tome 1, Genève. Bar-Yosef, O., Belmaker, M., 2011. Early and middle pleistocene faunal Brooks, A.S., Helgren, D.M., Cramer, J.S., et al., 1995. Dating and context and hominins dispersals through southwestern Asia. Quaternary Sci- of three middle stone age sites with bone points in the upper Semliki ence Reviews 30 (11e12), 1318e1337. Valley, Zaire. Science 268, 553e556. Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 751

Brose, D.S., Wolpoff, M.H., 1971. Early upper Paleolithic man and late d’Errico, F., Backwell, L.R., 2003. Possible evidence of bone tool shaping middle Paleolithic tools. American Anthropologist 73, 1156e1194. by Swartkrans early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 30 Bunn, H.T., 1981. Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio- (12), 1559e1576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0305-4403(03)00052-9. pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai gorge. Nature d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., Baffier, D., Pelegrin, J., 1998. Nean- 291, 574e577. derthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the ev- Bye, B.A., Brown, F.H., Cerling, T.E., et al., 1987. Increased age estimate idence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39 (S1), S1eS44. for the lower Paleolithic hominid site at Olorgesailie, Kenya. Nature Dart, R.A., 1957. The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus 329, 237e239. Prometheus (Pretoria). Callaway, E., 2015. Oldest stone tools raise questions about their creators. Davidson, I., McGrew, W.C., 2005. Stone tools and the uniqueness of Nature 520, 421. human culture. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 11, Cann, R.L., Stoneking, M., Wilson, A.C., 1987. Mitochondrial DNA and 793e817. human evolution. Nature 325, 31e36. Day, M.H., 1986. Guide to Fossil Man, fourth ed. The University of Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., et al., 2005. An Chicago Press, Chicago. early pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain. de Heinzelin, J., Clark, J.D., White, T., et al., 1999. Environment and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States behavior of 2.5-million-year-old Bouri hominids. Science 284, of America 102 (16), 5674e5678. 625e629. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X.P., 2007. The emergence of de la Torre, I., Mora, R., Martínez-Moreno, J., 2008. The early Acheulean technology: a cultural step or long-term evolution? Comptes Rendus in Peninj (Lake Natron, Tanzania). Journal of Anthropological Palevol 6 (3), 231e233. Archaeology 27 (2), 244e264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Charrié-Duhaut, A., Porraz, G., Cartwright, C.R., et al., 2013. First mo- j.jaa.2007.12.001. lecular identification of a hafting adhesive in the late Howiesons Poort de Villiers, H., 1973. Human skeletal remains from border cave, Ingwa- at Diepkloof rock shelter (western Cape, South Africa). Journal of vumu District, KwaZulu, South Africa. Annals of the Transvaal Archaeological Science 40 (9), 3506e3518. Museum 28, 229e256. Chauhan, P.R., 2010. Comment on ‘Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Deino, A., McBrearty, S., 2002. 40Ar/39Ar chronology for the Kapthurin Acheulian in the Indian sub-continent’ by Gaillard et al. (2009) formation, Baringo, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 42, 185e210. (Quaternary International). Quaternary International 223e224, Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Barba, R., Egeland, C.P., 2007. Deconstructing 248e259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.01.021. Olduvai: A Taphonomic Study of the Bed I Sites. Springer, Dordrecht. Churchill, S.E., Smith, F.H., 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Tresserras, J., et al., 2001. Europe. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 113 (Suppl. 31), Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on 61e115. Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Journal of Human Clark, G.A., 1969. World Prehistory: A New Synthesis. Cambridge Uni- Evolution 40, 289e299. versity Press, Cambridge. Douka, K., Higham, T.F.G., Wood, R., et al., 2014. On the chronology of Clark, G.A., 1997. The middle-upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: an the Uluzzian. Journal of Human Evolution 68, 1e13. American Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 30, 25e53. Dubois, E., 1894. Pithecanthropus erectus. Eine menschanähnliche Über- Clark, J.D., Beyene, Y., WoldeGabriel, G., et al., 2003. Stratigraphic, gangsform aus Java. Landsdruckerei, Batavia. chronological and behavioural contexts of pleistocene Homo sapiens Dusseldorp, G., Lombard, M., Wurz, S., 2013. Pleistocene Homo and the from middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423 (6941), 747e752. updated stone age sequence of South Africa. South African Journal of Clark, J.D., Heinzelin, J., Schick, K.D., et al., 1994. African Homo erectus: Science (5/6), 1e7. old radiometric ages and Young Oldowan assemblages in the middle Evernden, J.F., Curtiss, G.H., 1965. Potassium argon dating of late Awash valley, Ethiopia. Science 264, 1907e1920. Cenozoic rocks in East Africa and Italy. Current Anthropology 6, Clark, J.D., Kurashina, H., 1979. Hominid occupation of the east-Central 348e385. Highlands of Ethiopia in the Plio-pleistocene. Nature 282, 33e39. Ferring, R., Oms, O., Agustí, J., et al., 2011. Earliest human occupations at Clarke, R.J., Howell, F.C., Brain, C.K., 1970. More evidence of an Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated to 1.85e1.78 Ma. Proceedings of advanced hominid at Swartranks. Nature 225, 1219e1222. the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Conard, N.J., 2003. Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Ger- 108, 10432e10436. many and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426 (6968), 830e832. Foley, R.A., Maíllo-Fernández, J.M., Mirazón Lahr, M., 2013. The Middle Curnoe, D., 2010. A review of early Homo in southern Africa focusing on Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and cranial, mandibular and dental remains, with the description of a new technological strategies in later human evolution. Quaternary Inter- species (Homo gautengensis sp. nov.). HOMO e Journal of national 300, 153e170. Comparative Human Biology 61 (3), 151e177. http://dx.doi.org/ Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., 1995. A Plio-pleistocene hominid from Dmanisi, 10.1016/j.jchb.2010.04.002. east Georgia, Caucasus. Nature 373, 509e512. d’Errico, F., 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., 2000. The environmental origin of behavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, contexts of early human occupation of Georgia (Transcaucasia). 188e202. Journal of Human Evolution 38 (6), 785e802. d’Errico, F., Backwell, L., 2009. Assessing the function of early hominin Gabunia, L., de Lumley, M.A., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., de bone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (8), 1764e1773. Lumley, H., 2002. Découverte d’un nouvel hominidé à Dmanissi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.04.005. (Transcaucasie, Géorgie). Comptes Rendus Palevol I, pp. 243e253. 752 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

Gargett, R., 1989. Grave shortcoming: the evidence for neandertal burial Igreja, M., Porraz, G., 2013. Functional insights into the innovative early (commentary). Current Anthropology 30, 157e180. Howiesons Poort technology at Diepkloof rock shelter (western Goodall, J.M., 1964. Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of Cape, South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (9), free-living chimpanzees. Nature 201, 1264e1266. 3475e3491. Goodwin, A.J.H., Van Riet Lowe, C., 1929. The Stone Age Cultures of Isaac, G.L., 1969. Studies of early cultures in East Africa. World South Africa, vol. 27. Annals of the South African Museum, Cape Archaeology 1, 1e28. Town. Isaac, G.L., 1975. Stratigraphy and cultural patterns in East Africa during the Grine, F.E., Bailey, R.M., Harvati, K., et al., 2007. Late pleistocene human middle ranges of Pleistocene time. In: Butzer, K.W., Isaac, G.L. (Eds.), skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and modern human origins. Sci- After the Australopithecines. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 495e542. ence 315 (5809), 226e229. Isaac, G.L., 1978. The archaeological evidence for the activities of early Grine, F.E., Klein, R.G., 1985. Pleistocene and Holocene human remains African hominids. In: Jolly, C.J. (Ed.), Early Hominids of Africa. from Equus Cave, South Africa. Anthropology 8, 55e98. Duckworth, London, pp. 219e254. Groves, C.P., Mazák, V., 1975. An approach to the taxonomy of the Isaac, G.L., 1984. The archaeology of human origins: studies of the Lower Hominidae: Gracile Villafranchian hominids of Africa. Casopis pro Pleistocene in Africa. In: Wendorf, F., Close, A. (Eds.), Advances in Mineralogii a Geologii 20, 225e247. World Archaelogy, vol. 3. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1e87. Grün, R., Beaumont, P., Tobias, P.V., et al., 2003. On the age of Border Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., et al., 2008. Ages for the middle Cave 5 human mandible. Journal of Human Evolution 45 (2), 155e167. stone age of southern Africa: implications for human behavior and Haile-Selassie, Y., Asfaw, B., White, T.D., 2004. Hominid cranial remains dispersal. Science 322 (5902), 733e735. from upper pleistocene deposits at Aduma, Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Jakobsson, M., Scholz, S.W., Scheet, P., et al., 2008. Genotype, haplotype American Journal of Physical Anthropology 123 (1), 1e10. and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations. Nature Hedenström, A., 1995. Lifting the Taung’s child. Nature 378, 670. 451 (7181), 998e1003. Henry-Gambier, D., 2002. Les fosssiles de Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies-de- Jankovic, I., Karavanic, I., Ahern, J.C.M., et al., 2006. Vindija cave and tayac, Dordogne): Nouvelles données sur leur position chronologique the modern human peopling of Europe. Collegium Antropologicum et leur attribution culturelle. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société 30, 457e466. d’Anthropologie de Paris 14 (1e2), 89e112. Jankovic, I., Karavanic, I., Ahern, J.C.M., et al., 2011. Archaeological, Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Watts, I., 2009. Engraved ochres from the paleontological and genomic perspectives on late European Nean- middle stone age levels at Blombos cave, South Africa. Journal of dertals at Vindija cave, Croatia. In: Condemi, S., Weniger, G.-C. Human Evolution 57 (1), 27e47. (Eds.), Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Yates, R., et al., 2002. Emergence of Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study. Springer Science þ - modern human behavior: middle stone age engravings from South Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, pp. 299e313. Africa. Science. http://www.sciencexpress.org/10 January 2002/Page Karavanic, I., Smith, F.H., 1998. The Middle/Upper Paleolithic interface 4/10.1126/science.1067575. and the relationship of Neanderthals and early modern humans in Henshilwood, C.S., Dubreuil, B., 2012. Style, symbolism, and complex Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia. Journal of Human Evolution 34, 223e248. technology: the middle stone age in southern Africa: a response to Kimbel, W.H., Walter, R.C., Johanson, D.C., et al., 1996. Late Pliocene Shea. Current Anthropology 53 (1), 132e133. Homo and Oldowan tools from the hadar formation (Kada hadar Henshilwood, C.S., Sealy, J.C., Yates, R., et al., 2001. Blombos member), Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 31, 549e561. cave, southern Cape, South Africa: Preliminary report on the 1992, Kingston, J.D., Marino, B.D., Hill, A., 1994. Isotopic evidence for Äì1999 excavations of the middle stone age levels. Journal of Neogene hominid Paleoenvironments in the Kenia Rift valley. Science Archaeological Science 28 (4), 421e448. 264, 955e959. Higham, T., Brock, F., Peresani, M., et al., 2009. Problems with radio- Kivisild, T., Shen, P., Wall, D.P., et al., 2006. The role of selection in the carbon dating the middle to upper palaeolithic transition in Italy. evolution of human mitochondrial genomes. Genetics 172 (1), 373e387. Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (13e14), 1257e1267. Kozlowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. The formation of the Aurignacian in Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., et al., 2010. Chronology of the Grotte Europe. Journal of Anthropological Research 56 (4), 513e534. du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and Kuman, K., 2007. The earlier stone age in South Africa: site context and human remains within the Châtelperronian. Proceedings of the Na- the inﬂuence of cave studies. In: Pickering, T.R., Schick, K., Toth, N. tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, (Eds.), Breathing Life into Fossils. Stone Age Institute Press, Gosport, 20234e20239. IN, pp. 181e198. Hoffecker, J.F., 2009. The spread of modern humans in Europe. Pro- Lartet, E., 1860. Mémoire sur la station humaine d’Aurignac. ASNZ 15, ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 177e253. America 106, 16040e16045. Lartet, E., Christy, H., 1865e1875. Reliquiae Aquitanicae. Williams & Howell, F.C., 1952. Pleistocene glacial ecology and the evolution of Norgate, London. ‘classic neanderthal’ man. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 8, Leakey, L.S.B., 1951. Olduvai Gorge. A Report on the Evolution of the 377e410. Handaxe Culture in Beds I-IV. Cambridge University Press, Hublin, J.J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F., Condemi, S., 1996. Cambridge. A late neanderthal associated with upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature Leakey, L.S.B., Tobias, P.V., Napier, J.R., 1964. A new species of the 381, 224e226. genus Homo from Olduvai. Nature 202, 7e9. Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 753

Leakey, M., 1966. A review of the Oldowan culture from Olduvai gorge, Mellars, P., Gori, K.C., Carr, M., et al., 2013. Genetic and archaeological Tanzania. Nature 212, 577e581. perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Leakey, M.D., 1975. Cultural patterns in the Olduvai sequence. In: Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Butzer, K.W., Isaac, G.L. (Eds.), After the Australopithecines. States of America 110 (26), 10699e10704. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 477e493. Mercader, J., Barton, H., Gillespie, J., et al., 2007. 4300-Year-old chim- Leakey, M.G., Feibel, C.S., McDougall, I., et al., 1995. New four-million- panzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. Pro- year-old hominid species from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Nature ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 376, 565e572. America 104 (9), 3043e3048. Lepre, C.J., Roche, H., Kent, D.V., et al., 2011. An earlier origin for the Mercader, J., Panger, M., Boesch, C., 2002. Excavation of a chimpanzee Acheulian. Nature 477 (7362), 82e85. stone tool site in the African Rainforest. Science 296, 1452e1455. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1958. Étude des restes humains fossiles provenant des Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Joron, J.L., et al., 1991. Thermoluminescence grottes d’Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Annales de Paléontologie 44, dating of the late Neanderthal remains from Saint-Césaire. Nature 351, 87e148. 737e739. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1961. Les fouilles d’Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Gallia Mishra, S., Gaillard, C., Hertler, C., et al., 2010. India and Java: contrasting Préhistoire 4, 3e16. records, intimate connections. Quaternary International 223e224 (0), Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1964. Le Geste et la Parole. Albin Michel, Paris. 265e270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.11.040. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1975. The ﬂowers found with Shanidar IV, a nean- Morgan, L.E., Renne, P.R., 2008. Diachronous dawn of Africa’s middle derthal burial in Iraq. Science 190, 562e564. stone age: new 40Ar/39Ar ages from the Ethiopian Rift. Geology 36 Lévêque, F., Vandermeersch, B., 1980. Les découvertes de restes humains (12), 967e970. dans un niveau castelperronien à Saint-Césaire (Charente-Maritime). Mortillet, G., 1897. Formation de la Nation Française. Plon-Nourrit, Paris. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 291D, 187e189. Morwood, M.J., O’Sullivan, P.B., Aziz, A., et al., 1998. Fission-track ages Li, J.Z., Absher, D.M., Tang, H., et al., 2008. Worldwide human re- of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores. lationships inferred from genome-wide patterns of variation. Science Nature 392, 173e176. 319 (5866), 1100e1104. Movius, H.L., 1948. The Lower Paleolithic cultures of southern and eastern Lordkipanidze, D., Jashashvili, T., Vekua, A., et al., 2007. Postcranial Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38, 330e420. evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature 449 Movius, H.L., 1953. The mousterian cave of Teshik-Tash, Southeastern (7160), 305e310. Uzbekistan, central Asia. Bulletin of the American School of Prehis- Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Ferring, R., et al., 2006. A fourth hominin toric Research 17, 11e71. skull from Dmanisi, Georgia. The Anatomical Record. Part A Dis- Mturi, A.A., 1987. The archaeological sites of Lake Natron. Lac Natron, coveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 288, Sciences Geologique 40, 209e215. 1146e1157. Mulcahy, N.J., Call, J., 2006. Apes save tools for future use. Science 312 Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Ferring, R., et al., 2005. The earliest (5776), 1038e1040. toothless hominin skull. Nature 434, 717e718. Napier, J.R., 1962. Fossil hand bones from Olduvai gorge. Nature 196, McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new 409e411. interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Nejman, L., 2008. A reinterpretation of early upper palaeolithic assem- Human Evolution 39, 453e563. blages from Stránská Skála: the differences in lithic Economy between McBrearty, S., Tryon, C., 2006. From Acheulean to middle stone age in the Aurignacian and the Bohunician assemblages. Prehled Výzkumu the Kapthurin formation, Kenya. In: Hoverm, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), 49, 24e45. Transitions Before the Transition. Springer, New York, pp. 257e277. Noble, W., Davidson, I., 1996. Human Evolution, Language and Mind. McDermott, F., Stringer, C., Grün, R., et al., 1996. New Late-Pleistocene Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. uranium-thorium and ESR dates for the Singa hominid (Sudan). Noll, M.P., Petraglia, M.D., 2003. Acheulean bifaces and early human Journal of Human Evolution 31 (6), 507e516. behavioral patterns in East Africa and south India. In: Soressi, M., McPherron, S.P., Alemseged, Z., Marean, C.W., et al., 2010. Evidence for Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 466 (7308), 857e860. and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 31e53. Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton University Press, Otte, M., 2003. The Pittfalls of using bifaces as cultural markers. In: Princeton, NJ. Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Mellars, P., 2005. The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Museum of the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evolutionary An- Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 183e192. thropology 14, 12e27. Otte, M., 2010. Before Levallois. Quaternary International 223e224, Mellars, P., 2006a. Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in 273e280. Europe: deconstructing the “Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropol- Panger, M.A., Brooks, A.S., Richmond, B.G., et al., 2002. Older than the ogy: Issues, News, and Reviews 15 (5), 167e182. http://dx.doi.org/ Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use. Evolu- 10.1002/evan.20103. tionary Anthropology 11, 235e245. Mellars, P., 2006b. Why did modern human populations disperse from Peresani, M., Cremaschi, M., Ferraro, F., et al., 2008. Age of the ﬁnal Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model. Proceedings of the Na- middle palaeolithic and Uluzzian levels at Fumane cave, northern tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (25), Italy, using 14C, ESR, 234U/230Th and thermoluminescence methods. 9381e9386. Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (11), 2986e2996. 754 PART | III Ethics, Politics and Religious Considerations

Pickering, T.R., White, T.D., Toth, N., 2000. Cutmarks on a Plio- Simanjuntak, T., Sémah, F., Gaillard, C., 2010. The palaeolithic in Pleistocene hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. American Indonesia: nature and chronology. Quaternary International 223e224, Journal of Physical Anthropology 111, 570e584. 418e421. Plummer, T., 2004. Flaked stones and old bones: biological and cultural Singer, R., Wymer, J., 1982. The Middle Stone Age of Klasies River evolution at the dawn of technology. Yearbook of Physical Anthro- Mouth in South Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. pology 47, 118e164. Solecki, R., 1975. Shanidar IV, a neanderthal flower burial in northern Porraz, G., Parkington, J.E., Rigaud, J.-P., et al., 2013a. The MSA Iraq. Science 190, 880e881. sequence of Diepkloof and the history of southern African Late Steele, J., 1999. Stone legacy of skilled hands. Nature 399, 24e25. Pleistocene populations. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (9), Stringer, C., Gamble, C., 1993. In: Search of the Neanderthals (Ed. cas- 3542e3552. tellana, En busca de los neandertales. Barcelona, Crítica, 1996 ed.). Porraz, G., Texier, P.-J., Archer, W., et al., 2013b. Technological suc- Thames and Hudson, London. cessions in the middle stone age sequence of Diepkloof rock shelter, Stringer, C.B., Trinkaus, E., 1981. The Shanidar neanderthal crania. In: western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (9), Stringer, C.B. (Ed.), Aspects of Human Evolution. Taylor & Francis, 3376e3400. London, pp. 129e165. Protsch, R., de Villiers, H., 1974. Bushman rock shelter, Origstad, eastern Szmidt, C.C., Normand, C., Burr, G.S., et al., 2010. AMS 14C dating the Transvaal, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 3 (5), 387e396. Protoaurignacian/Early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France. Implications Rayner, R.J., Moon, B.P., Masters, J.C., 1993. The Makapansgat for Neanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical australopithecine environments. Journal of Human Evolution 24, and cultural innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 219e231. 37 (4), 758e768. Riel-Salvatore, J., Clark, G.A., 2001. Grave markers. Middle and early Taieb, M., 1974. Évolution Quaternaire du Bassin de l’Awash (Ph.D. upper Paleolithic burials and the use of chronotypology in contem- dissertation). University of Paris VI. porary Paleolithic research. Current Anthropology 42, 449e479. Tchernov, E., 1987. The age of the Ubeidiya formation. Israel Journal of Rightmire, G.P., 1984. Homo sapiens in sub-Sarahan Africa. In: Smith, F., Earth Sciences 36, 3e36. Spencer, F. (Eds.), The Origins of Modern Humans. Alan R. Liss, Tchernov, E., 1999. The earliest hominids in the southern Levant. In: New York, pp. 295e325. Proceedings of the International Conference of Human Palaeontology, Robinson, J.T., 1962. The origin and adaptive radiation of the Australo- Orce, Spain, 1995. Museo de Prehistoria y Paleontologia, Orce, pithecines. In: Kurth, G. (Ed.), Evolution und Hominization. pp. 369e406. Stuttgarter Verlagskontor Gmbh, Stuttgart, pp. 150e175. Tchernov, E. (Ed.), 1986. Les Mammifères du Pléistocene Inférieur de la Robinson, J.T., Manson, R.J., 1957. Occurrence of stone artefacts with Vallée du Jourdain a Oubeidiyeh, vol. 5. Association Paléorient, Paris. Australopithecus at Sterkfontein. Nature 180, 521e524. Tiercelin, J.-J., Schuster, M., Roche, H., et al., 2010. New considerations Roche, H., Delagnes, A., Brugal, J.-P., et al., 1999. Early hominid stone on the stratigraphy and environmental context of the oldest (2.34 Ma) tool production and technical skill 2.34 Myr ago in West Turkana, Lokalalei archaeological site complex of the Nachukui Formation, Kenya. Nature 399, 57e60. West Turkana, northern Kenya Rift. Journal of African Earth Sciences Rolland, N., 2004. Was the emergence of home bases and domestic fire a 58 (2), 157e184. punctuated event? A review of the middle pleistocene record in Eur- Tobias, P.V., 1966. Fossil hominid remains from Ubeidiya, Israel. Nature asia. Asian Perspectives 43, 248e280. 211, 130e133. Ron, H., Levi, S., 2001. When did hominids first leave Africa? New high- Toth, N., 1985a. Archaeological evidence for preferential right-handedness resolution magnetostratigraphy from the Erk-el-Ahmar Formation, in the lower and middle Pleistocene, and its possible implication. Israel. Geology 29, 887e890. Journal of Human Evolution 14, 607e614. Ronen, A., 2006. The oldest human groups in the Levant. Comptes Rendus Toth, N., 1985b. The Oldowan Reassessed: a close look at early stone Palevol 5, 345e351. artifact. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 101e120. Sabater Pi, J., 1984. El chimpancé y los orígenes de la cultura. Anthropos, Trinkaus, E., 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. Academic Press, New York. Barcelona. Trinkaus, E., Shipman, P., 1993. The Neandertals. Changing the Image of Schick, K.D., Toth, N., 1993. Making Silent Stones Speak. Simon & Mankind. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Schuster, New York. Tryon, C., 2006. Le concept Levallois en Afrique. Fontation Fyssen e Schlanger, N., 1994. Châine opératoire for an archaeology of the mind. In: Annales 20, 132e145. Renfrew, C., Zubrow, E.B.W. (Eds.), The Ancient Mind. Elements of Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Rightmire, G.P., et al., 2002. A new skull of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science 297 (5578), 85e89. pp. 143e151. Vigilant, L., Stoneking, M., Harpending, H., et al., 1991. African pop- Schlebusch, C.M., Skoglund, P., Sjödin, P., et al., 2012. Genomic varia- ulations and the evolution of human mitochondrial DNA. Science 253, tion in seven Khoe-San groups reveals adaptation and complex african 1503e1507. history. Science 338, 374e379. Vogel, G., 1999. Chimps in the wild show stirrings of culture. Science Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J.W.K., et al., 1997. 2.5-million-year-old 284, 2070e2073. stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385, 333e336. Vogel, J.C., Waterbolk, H.T., 1967. Groningen Radio Carbon dates VII. Semaw, S., Rogers, M., Stout, D., 2009. The Oldowan-Acheulian transi- Radio Carbon 9, 145. tion: is there a “developed Oldowan” artifact tradition? In: Camps, M., von Petzinger, G., Nowell, A., 2014. A place in time: situating Chauvet Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. Springer, within the long chronology of symbolic behavioral development. New York, pp. 173e193. Journal of Human Evolution 74, 37e54. Science and Technology in Human Societies Chapter | 44 755

Wadley, L., 2010. Compound-adhesive manufacture as a behavioral proxy Yellen, J.E., Brooks, A.S., Cornelissen, E., et al., 1995. A middle stone age for complex cognition in the middle stone age. Current Anthropology worked bone industry from Katanda, upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. 51 (S1), S111eS119. Science 268, 553e556. Wanpo, H., Ciochon, R., Yumin, G., et al., 1995. Early Homo and asso- Yuan, Z.X., Lin, Y.P., Zhou, G.X., et al., 1984. Field report of an exca- ciated artefacts from Asia. Nature 378, 275e278. vation at Yuanmou Man’s site. In: Zhou, G.X., Zhang, X.Y. (Eds.), Washburn, S.L., 1957. Australopithecines; the hunters or the hunted? Yuanmou Man. Yunnan People’s Press, Kunming, China, pp. 12e22. American Anthropologist 59, 612e614. Zhang, P., Huang, W., Wang, W., 2010. Acheulean handaxes from White, R., 2001. Personal ornaments from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy- Fengshudao, Bose sites of south China. Quaternary International sur-Cure. Athena Review 2 (4), 41e46. 223e224, 440e443. White, T.D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., et al., 2003. Pleistocene Homo sa- Zhu, R.X., Potts, R., Pan, Y.X., et al., 2008. Early evidence of the genus piens from middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423 (6941), 742e747. Homo in East Asia. Journal of Human Evolution 55 (6), 1075e1085. Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W.C., et al., 1999. Cultures in chim- Zhu, R.X., Potts, R., Xie, F., et al., 2004. New evidence on the earliest panzees. Nature 399, 682e685. human presence at high northern latitudes in northeast Asia. Nature Whiten, A., Horner, V., de Waal, F.B.M., 2005. Conformity to cultural 431 (7008), 559e562. norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature 437 (7059), 737e740. Zilhão, J., 2006. Aurignacian, behavior, modern: issues of definition in the Wilkins, J., 2013. Technological Change in the Early Middle Pleistocene: emergence of the European Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., The Onset of the Middle Stone Age at Kathu Pan 1, Northern Cape, Zilhão, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. American South Africa (Ph.D.). University of Toronto. School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Will, M., Bader, G.D., Conard, N., 2014. Characterizing the late pleisto- Lisboa, pp. 53e69. cene MSA lithic technology of Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Zilhão, J., d’Errico, F., Bordes, J.G., et al., 2006. Analysis of Aurignacian PLoS One 9 (5), e98359. interstratification at the Chatelperronian-type site and implications for WoldeGabriel, G., White, T.D., Suwa, G., et al., 1994. Ecological and the behavioral modernity of Neandertals. Proceedings of the National temporal placement of early Pliocene hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia. Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (33), Nature 371, 330e333. 12643e12648. Wood, B., 1997. The oldest whodunnit in the world. Nature 385, 292e293. Yamei, H., Potts, R., Baoyin, Y., et al., 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulan- like stone technology of the Bose basin, south China. Science 287, 1622e1626.